Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Thursday 25 January.

SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL

Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the Spoliation Advisory Panel in respect of a painting now in the possession of the Tate Gallery by the Right honourable Sir David Hirst.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Trade Union Recognition

Mr. John Healey: What assessment he has made of the operation of the new provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 setting up the statutory arrangements for trade union recognition. [144527]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The statutory recognition procedure has been in force since 6 June last year, and so far 38 applications for recognition have been received by the central arbitration committee. Early indications suggest that the procedure is working well and is becoming an accepted feature of the employment relations system.

Mr. Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week's TUC report shows that the number of new recognition deals signed by unions in the past 12 months is double that of the year before? In its northern region alone, the Transport and General Workers Union has signed or is in the process of signing 16 new voluntary agreements. Does that not demonstrate that the extreme hostility displayed by the Tories throughout the Act's passage through Parliament shows that the party is as out

of touch with the modern employer as it is with the aspirations of ordinary working people, who simply want fairness and protection in the workplace?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He was a very active member of the Standing Committee that considered the legislation and he knows that it aims to bring stability to collective bargaining. Not only do the Tories want to return to boom and bust, but they want to return to the them-and-us situation of the 1980s and 1990s which plunged the country into industrial unrest. The aim of the new procedure is voluntary engagement, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the TUC report published on Monday shows that there have been a record number of recognition deals—159 covering 58,000 workers in the 13 months from November 1999 to November 2000. That is a sign of consensus and of a voluntary approach to these matters. Stability has returned to industrial relations.

Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister explain why the number of strikes called in the past 12 months has increased by over a fifth?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to return to the days of the Government whom he supported, when industrial unrest was created and trade unions were not recognised. We are now seeing a greater spirit of partnership between employers and employees. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that 44 of the top 50 UK companies recognise trade unions. Working in partnership is the way forward for a Britain with a stable economy and stable industrial relations.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recognised trade unions are important in ensuring that British industry meets its obligation to create wealth without damaging health? Will she consider bringing together trade unions, employers, insurance companies and lawyers in the construction industry, the steel industry and, in particular, the power industry with a view to facilitating the introduction of sectoral no-fault liability schemes for asbestos victims?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that underpins the Government's attitude to industrial relations, which is that the spirit of partnership should be fostered. I shall reflect on his point and get back to him.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on recent steps he has taken to ensure consumers receive value for money. [144528]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): We are ensuring that consumers get better value for money through stronger protection in such areas as distance selling and


e-commerce, better advice through consumer support networks and, most important, a stronger and more effective competition regime.

Mr. Dobbin: House buyers are consumers. Can my hon. Friend offer them some protection and an honest deal from unscrupulous cowboy builders?

Dr. Howells: Ultimately, any disagreement is a civil dispute between a customer and a builder. However, colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have developed a quality mark scheme to help consumers find reliable builders and workers in allied trades such as plumbing and roofing. The scheme ensures that quality mark builders are technically competent, possess relevant qualifications and display financial probity.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that one of the worst examples of a failure to give business and private consumers value for money is in the banking sector, where consumers are being ripped off by up to £5 billion a year, according to the Cruickshank report? Will he explain how the Government intend to implement the report's recommendation that mergers involving a major bank—such as the present merger between Lloyds and Abbey National, which affects the current account market—will automatically be referred to the Competition Commission? Will he assure the House that the fact that the banks are helping to establish the Post Office universal bank will not lead to their being given an easy ride on competition policy?

Dr. Howells: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, competition matters are judged and decided by the Office of Fair Trading. There will be no automatic referrals. We consider the judgment of the Office of Fair Trading, under the director general, as the most valuable source of information. In most cases, we accept it.

Mr. Frank Roy: On the issue of ensuring that consumers receive value for money, my hon. Friend will be aware that I presented a petition to the Office of Fair Trading which bore more than 20,000 names. It demanded an investigation into the rip-off involving the holiday fuel prices charged by holiday firms. May I ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend that he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading when an inquiry will take place and when we can have the findings that ensue so that we can finally put an end to the rip-off of holiday price fixing, and especially fuel supplements?

Dr. Howells: Like my hon. Friend, I am determined that holidaymakers should get good value for money. I know that he has been waiting for answers to the questions which he put to the director general in writing last July. Successive directors general have promised him responses. Now that my hon. Friend has raised the matter with me, he can be assured that I will raise it with the director general and ask him to contact my hon. Friend immediately.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): But why are the Government undermining consumer rights by persecuting traders who are selling fruit and vegetables

off market stalls in pounds and ounces? Why did the Government not even try to extend the directive, which would have permitted the continuing use of pounds and ounces in the way the previous Government succeeded in doing in 1989? The Government did not even ask for that. Why did they have such a warped sense of priority that they failed completely to bring forward their promised consumer Bill, which would have clamped down on rogue and dishonest traders, while at the same time, and instead, they are persecuting honest traders whose only crime is to serve their customers in units which they ask for and understand?

Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was the Leader of the Opposition who signed up to the directive in the first place. The previous Government agreed with the Commission that twin pricing, so that metric and imperial pricing could operate alongside each other in shops, would be phased out in 1999, but the Labour Government secured a 10-year extension to it. It is indicative that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who has a much bigger voice than appetite, could manage only a quarterpounder—he could not manage even a Big Mac.

Tyre Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions he has had with the UK tyre manufacturing industry regarding UK production. [144529]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): As the main tyre manufacturers are major inward investors into the UK, the Department keeps in close contact with them both at a regional and national level in the UK.

Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Michelin announced last year that the production of tyres at its Stoke factory would cease. He will also be aware that over the Christmas and new year period, cuts in production and output were announced by Goodyear at Wolverhampton. Does he recognise that in my constituency, where there is a Michelin factory, and in others there is considerable concern about the future of the tyre industry? Will he give an assurance that he believes it is essential that we continue to manufacture tyres in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. Global restructuring has obviously affected some British companies, and Michelin is but one of them. I remind the House that tyre production was worth in excess of £1 billion in 1999, and there were about £800 million worth of exports. There are still more than 8,000 people employed in the industry. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and the Department will be commissioning a competitive study to examine the entire rubber industry, and especially the tyre sector, where electronics are playing a greater part in production. With our research establishment, we want to ensure that we are at the leading edge of technology. Companies such as Pirelli are showing the way by introducing a robotics line in the UK. I think that we will be moving up the value-added chain in the tyre sector.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Given the importance of exports to the UK tyre manufacturing


industry, and given that since its introduction two years ago the euro has declined sharply against the pound sterling, should not the policy of the Government, on reflection, have been to try to ease the burden of taxes and regulations on the industry, rather than bringing about the exact opposite?

Mr. Caborn: The way in which the Government have assisted industry, by creating a strong macro-economic framework and, at the micro level, introducing tax advantages for many parts of our manufacturing base, has been welcomed by manufacturing, including the tyre manufacturers. Three of the five major manufacturers of tyres are in the UK. They look to the Government to give the lead, as we shall do, on a foresight programme to develop new technology for those industries. The euro has not affected the global reorganisation that Michelin and others are undertaking. We want to help such industries to manage in the most effective way the changes involved in globalisation.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: But does not my right hon. Friend believe, as I do, that if a company such as Michelin closes down tyre production in the UK, or General Motors closes down car production, or Orange behaves badly as a telecoms operator, we should encourage the British consumer to be discriminatory, to buy products that are manufactured in our own country, to favour industries that stay and manufacture in the UK, and to penalise those that do not?

Mr. Caborn: I do not think that in this day and age that would be the right way forward. We look to the consumer to buy the best quality at the best price. The Government support the continued management of the globalisation of trade through organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. I remind my hon. Friend that in the past decade, that policy has enhanced world trade by 25 or 26 per cent. We believe that that is the way to go—to expand the global economy in a managed way that will produce a good result for the consumer. We are doing that through leading-edge technology in many industries.

Universal Bank

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): What the cost of setting up and running the Post Office universal bank will be to (a) the Post Office and (b) the Government. [144530]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Universal banking services will be funded by the Government and the banks. Until the full details of universal banking services have been settled, it is too early to say what Government support may be required.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Not content with attacking people who sell in pounds and ounces, why are the Government attacking another group of traders—sub-post offices, which are shutting at the rate of almost two a day because of the Treasury-inspired decision, which the right hon. Gentleman's Department should have stopped, to remove about 40 per cent. of their income which they derive through the present system of encashment of benefits and pensions at post offices? Why has the right

hon. Gentleman done nothing to stop that, and why will he not even tell the House the cost of his alternative plans? We know that the costs are mounting. Why does he not tell us what they are? If they exceed the eventual Treasury savings, why does he not just call the whole thing off and permit the vital local network of post offices to go on serving its customers and its local pensioners as it always has done, without the additional and wholly unnecessary threat from the Government?

Mr. Byers: Perhaps the House would like some facts, rather than relying on the right hon. Gentleman's prejudice. The highest rate of post office closures took place under a Conservative Government. Automated credit transfer, which the right hon. Gentleman blames for closures, will not be introduced until 2003 and has nothing to do with the present situation. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would applaud the fact that on 20 December the six main high street banks reached an agreement with the Government for universal banking services. I am confident that within the next few weeks we will sign a memorandum of understanding with those banks, and with other high street banks as well. What the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept is that the Government are giving new hope and a new future to the post office network. He does not like that, but that is the reality, providing new banking services for consumers which will also benefit the network.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I urge my right hon. Friend to be cautious about the term "universal bank". I do so on behalf of the Universal building society based in Newcastle in my constituency, which, I believe my right hon. Friend is aware, is concerned about that.
I congratulate the Government on their initiative in creating a payment method in the control of the Post Office which can deliver benefit payments and make direct debit payments, making the payment of bills cheaper for a much larger number of people, but I urge my right hon. Friend to be a little cautious in his dealings with the high street banks, which may well use this as an opportunity to secure a deal that will not be favourable to the Post Office and its prospective customers in future. When he drafts the memorandum of understanding, will he be careful to avoid a rip-off by the high street banks?

Mr. Byers: I take counsel from my hon. Friend. We shall need to look carefully at the details of the agreement that we enter into with the high street banks. The important point is that, as a result of the agreement that we have struck, two types of bank account will be operated through the Post Office, both providing a Post Office-based solution. There will be the basic bank account, provided by the banks themselves, and a Post Office bank account. The good news, particularly for people on low incomes, is that both accounts will offer direct debit facilities with utilities, which will lead to a reduction in the amount that individuals pay. Most of us are aware that families on low incomes, who at the moment do not have such benefits, pay a disproportionately high share of their income in fuel and other utility payments. As a result of this initiative, the Government will reduce those costs and ensure that many


people who at the moment are financially excluded will have the benefits that most hon. Members simply take for granted.

Mr. Tony Baldry: In his negotiations with the banks, the Secretary of State must have suggested a figure of public money that the Treasury was willing to make available to the universal bank. That figure cannot be commercial in confidence because, clearly, it is public money. Surely the Secretary of State can now share with the House the amount that the Government are prepared to commit to ensuring that the universal bank is a success.

Mr. Byers: We want the other banks to come alongside the six that have signed up, because that will mean more income for the Government, so the negotiations are not yet complete, but when they are, yes, of course, that information will be made available to the House. Those negotiations have not yet been concluded, so most right hon. and hon. Members will understand why that information cannot yet be disclosed to the House.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many car workers will want to use the Post Office's banking services, and will he take this opportunity roundly to condemn CGNU for its decision to ban the sale of mortgage protection insurance services to MG Rover employees? After the chairman of Rover has been to see the company, will he haul it in to ask it what it thinks it is playing at?

Mr. Byers: I hope that when CGNU has had the opportunity of hearing from John Towers at first hand, it will be able to reconsider its policy on that matter.

Mr. Brian Cotter: In response to a question in December, the Minister said that cost would be a consideration in choosing the software system for the universal bank, implying that the cheapest system might be chosen. As there have in the past been many high-profile examples of computer systems failing, will he assure the House that the system chosen will be the most effective, and that cost will not be the deciding factor? Who will be responsible for the universal banking system—the Post Office, the banks or the Government?

Mr. Byers: I think I told the House that cost would be a factor to be taken into account; the situation would be rather unusual if that were not the case. However, it will not be the only factor. We want to achieve value for money, which will involve looking at the quality of the service to be offered. Universal banking services will be a post office-based solution, and the memorandum of understanding will state clearly the various responsibilities of the key stakeholders—the Government, the Post Office and the banks themselves. If the hon. Gentleman can wait just a few weeks more, we will be able to publish the memorandum of understanding, and he will be able to see the details.
The important point for the post office network is that, as a result of the Government's initiatives, there will be universal banking services, every post office will be computerised by Easter, and Government general practitioners will start in pilots in March this year. The Government are acting for the Post Office, which is in

total contrast with the approach of the Opposition, who simply let the market determine what would happen to the network and did not give any real hope for the future.

EU Information and Consultation Directive

Mr. David Kidney: What recent representations he has received on the proposed European directive on information and consultation. [144531]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have received various representations on the proposed European directive. The Government remain opposed to the directive which, we believe, contains a number of weaknesses. However, we believe that the time is right to consider our own United Kingdom arrangements in that area. I have therefore written today to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, inviting them to take part in a review of existing collective redundancy legislation and, in particular, to consider what more should be done to promote effective consultation.

Mr. Kidney: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer, and am very pleased that my question elicited that constructive announcement. However, does he accept that, in the United Kingdom today, when workers' livelihoods are at stake in negotiations involving their employers, they really ought to know and be consulted about that, rather than first hear of their redundancies on the morning news bulletin? Will he give an assurance that the process that he described will result in a law that makes good practices on consultation and information routine everywhere in Britain?

Mr. Byers: I agree that it is simply unacceptable for hard-working and dedicated workers to be kept in the dark about the future intentions of their employers. We therefore need to engage constructively with both sides of industry, which we are doing by inviting the TUC and CBI to participate. I am confident that they will both respond positively, as it is not in anyone's interest to have a situation in which the work force do not feel that they are part of the undertaking for which they work.
Yesterday evening, I had the pleasure of helping to launch the TUC Partnership Institute, which aims to bring together both sides of business in a constructive way—not as a soft option or a quick fix, but as a way for both sides to work together. That is a different approach to the workplace, which we have tried to create with the legislation that we have put through. It is about moving away from the conflict that the Opposition tried to promote in the workplace; it recognises that we will achieve a lot more if we work together in a real sense of partnership and consensus.

Mr. Edward Leigh: When the Secretary of State next visits Europe, will he have a word with our continental partners about how they implement directives, and especially this directive? On the continent, people have a healthy, not cynical, attitude to European directives, and believe that they are meant for guidance. For instance, one can go into any marketplace in France


and sometimes hear market traders hurling out their wares in pre-revolutionary weights and measurements or livres. Why not? Laissez-faire, laissez-passer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a bit wide of the question.

Mr. Byers: I would not have expected anything else of the hon. Gentleman. We have looked carefully at the proposed European directive, which is flawed in several important areas and is not an appropriate vehicle to be imposed directly on the UK System. For example, our whole system of corporate structures is quite different from that on the continent. However, in many respects, the directive reflects the continental system of corporate governance, not that in the United Kingdom. The directive is not appropriate for several reasons, but the issue is important and we should deal with it in our domestic setting.

Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the review of workers' rights to consultation. I hope that the review will prompt fresh legislation, which might be called the Vauxhall workers Bill. Such legislation should ensure that no other workers suffer the agony of being told by telephone or radio that their jobs are to go and that no other employer treats workers as shabbily as General Motors treated the Vauxhall workers at Luton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that workers have continuing consultation and are provided with adequate information, so that proper partnership and dialogue are in place before closures occur, rather than afterwards?

Mr. Byers: I was grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to see me before Christmas a number of people from the Vauxhall work force at Luton who had been affected by General Motors' decision. They made a number of important points, but their main point, which they constantly pushed, concerned the way in which General Motors had treated them. Just over two years ago, they had entered into a partnership agreement, but the company had not honoured it. They felt that they should have been involved in the final decision. Those factors, as well as other incidents of which hon. Members are aware, have been a key driving force in our decision to launch the initiative announced today. It is unacceptable for people to learn about their fate on a local radio news station. That is not the right way to do business at the beginning of the 21st century; there must be a better way. In discussions with the TUC and the CBI, I want to find ways in which we can map out in the real spirit of partnership an approach that is appropriate for the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Bercow: There is, of course, a world of difference between the Government introducing legislation and the European Union poking its oversized nose into the matter. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in addition to being opposed by the Government, the present form of the directive is also vigorously opposed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the British Chambers of Commerce? Is he aware that his predecessor, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, made a solemn

pledge in front of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November 1998, when he said that the British Government would prevent the introduction of the directive in this country? Does he understand, therefore, that if the Government now sell out to the German view and accept the directive's application to companies with only 50 employees, it will be the latest example given by them of perfidy and betrayal in respect of corporate business?

Mr. Byers: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would speak up, so that I can hear him.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The country will have heard him.

Mr. Byers: I pity the country.
We have made it clear that we share the concerns about the detail of the directive that have been expressed by many of the organisations mentioned. However, engagement by the work force with the decisions that are taken by their company is an important issue that must be addressed. We do not agree with the detail of the directive, but we feel that it relates to an issue that can be dealt with in the United Kingdom setting. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) agrees that such an issue exists, he should welcome the fact that we are dealing with it in domestic legislation. That is what I am announcing today. There is an issue that needs to be addressed and I think it can be dealt with more quickly and effectively in the domestic setting.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the treatment of the Luton workers caused a great deal of anger among Labour Back Benchers and has given rise to a growing view that the Government should throw their weight behind the European directive, notwithstanding its flaws? I am very pleased to learn from him that the Government are taking the matter seriously. We will want to consider his proposals very closely.

Mr. Byers: It is only right that that should happen. Some of the European directives, including the works councils directive, which we have endorsed, contain flaws and are not working as effectively in industry as we would like them to. There are instances of similar problems elsewhere. When General Motors made its announcement about Luton, it also announced the loss of about 2,000 jobs in Germany.
The work force there was not consulted or given information about the decision. The system in continental Europe does not work as effectively as most of us would like. It is therefore more appropriate to consider what is needed in the United Kingdom domestic setting and take suitable action.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that no legislation is needed? Will he confirm that the record that successive Governments achieved over 20 years through our flexible labour market was envied in Europe, and that industrial relations should be tackled on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the employee?

Mr. Byers: I think there is no problem with a flexible labour market, provided that minimum standards are


attached to it to ensure that individuals are not exploited. The Conservative party tried to take us back to the Victorian approach to industrial relations, of master and servant. Conservative Members continue to support that. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is open about it, as can be seen if people take the time and trouble to read his writings on such matters. The Conservative party wishes to return to the master-servant relationship.
However, the Labour party believes that minimum standards, such as the rights to paid leave in a family emergency, to paid holidays and to a national minimum wage are basic entitlements in any decent, civilised society at the beginning of the 21st century. We are providing those entitlements; the Conservative party would take them all away.

Manufacturing (North-West)

Mr. David Crausby: What assessment he has made of the recent performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England. [144532]

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The performance of manufacturing industry in the north-west is being continually assessed by markets operating in conditions of free and fair competition.
The Government are providing the economic stability, which I mentioned earlier, that allows companies to plan ahead with confidence.

Mr. Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that output, exports and employment have fallen in the past four months in the north-west of England? BAE Systems is threatening thousands more redundancies. Things are therefore becoming difficult, to say the least. Bolton has suffered wave after wave of engineering redundancies and two textile factories have closed recently. It is crucial to tackle the scattering of redundancies constructively. What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me that he will protect the vital north-west industrial base?

Mr. Caborn: The Government have been doing that through several measures since we came to office in 1997. As my hon. Friend knows, we asked the business-led regional development agencies to consider the real structural weaknesses in the regional economies. Those are now beginning to be addressed.
I remind my hon. Friend that the number of manufacturing jobs has increased. For example, approximately 7,000 jobs have been created in fibre optic communications; BAE Systems created 1,700 jobs in Wales. The picture is not all doom and gloom. My hon. Friend knows that more people are in employment now than for many years. The strong macro-economic framework that the Chancellor has created for manufacturing bodes well for the future.
That does not mean that we are complacent; we know that we must move up the value added chain. The regional development agencies and Government offices working with regional partners are addressing those matters.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister says that it is not all doom and gloom, but there is too much

doom and gloom in manufacturing in the north-west. Last year, there were several hundred redundancies in east Lancashire alone. There is currently the prospect of perhaps 2,000 job losses in BAE Systems. We have been told that they will probably fall on the military side. That will affect Samlesbury in my constituency, and Warton, which is not so many miles away. The ripple effect on contractors and small businesses in the area will be devastating. What action will the Government take to ensure that those manufacturing jobs are protected?

Mr. Caborn: Even as recently as two weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was lobbying hard for the Hawk in India, and we are hopeful that there will be an order from there. In the wider context of BAE Systems, it is a changing scene and we must manage change. BAE Systems is one of the better companies in this country, and is in constant dialogue with the Government. We can assist it in developing technologies and ensuring that the skills base is commensurate with its needs. We must manage change in these modern, globalised times, and we will do that with responsible employers. I emphasise again that there are more people employed now than there were in 1997, when we came to power.

Maria Eagle: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work force and management at Jaguar Halewood on the edge of my constituency—it has its front door in my constituency—which is bucking the national trend in car manufacturing and has just taken on 500 extra workers to build the X400? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that manufacturing on Merseyside is in a very healthy condition?

Mr. Caborn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I remind her that in 1997 £3 billion was invested in car manufacturing in the United Kingdom, which created 9,800 new jobs. Jaguar has been part of that, as my hon. Friend said. Success is being achieved, especially on Merseyside, where partnerships are working well.

Mr. Richard Page: It is understandable, with a general election coming, that the Minister's answer had a tad more spin than substance. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) put his finger on the problem. Unemployment is increasing in the north-west in sectors such as aerospace, textiles and food processing, in which there have been serious job losses. Is the Minister aware that the TUC has extreme concerns about trends in the area? Is he also aware that the CBI, in its latest survey, says that the north-west has had the second greatest loss of business confidence? Is he not worried, like us, that the Government are creating a north-south divide?
When will the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry stand up for manufacturing and argue against the raft of regulations that is driving business down? When will they stand up for the sector in the face of the climate change levy, which will cost thousands of jobs? When will the Minister speak up for manufacturing?

Mr. Caborn: I do not know whether a "tad" is imperial or metric: perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us how he measures it. Clearly, he has forgotten what was happening


three years ago when we came to power and there was real concern in the north-west. What has happened since? Yes, we have increased employment in the north-west. Yes, with partners there, we are finding solutions to the long-term problems with which the Tories left us. We need no lectures from the Opposition on manufacturing and the development of the economy.

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What plans he has to reform the method of setting the figure for the national minimum wage. [144533]

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have no such plans. The Government have confidence in the independent Low Pay Commission. As the minimum wage is here to stay under this Government, we have decided to make the Low Pay Commission a permanent body.

Mr. Corbyn: Clearly everyone welcomes the principle of a national minimum wage, and I congratulate the Government on introducing it, but does the Minister agree that the current level is far too low? It is extremely difficult for anyone to live and survive on that level of pay. Would it not be better if the national minimum wage were immediately raised to £5 an hour—which would be something approaching a wage on which people could live—and thereafter increased in line with earnings, rather than left to a quango to decide? The poorest workers could then share in the rising prosperity of the rest of the workers in this country.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend should not underestimate the positive effect that the introduction of the minimum wage, even at its present level, has achieved. The figures that the Government submitted to the Low Pay Commission in our evidence show clearly that, for the first time in many years, the bottom 10 per cent. of income earners have had a higher increase in their average earnings than the top 10 per cent. Earnings in the north-east and Wales—traditionally low-paid areas—have increased by a larger amount than those anywhere else in the country, so real benefits are coming through.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider the remit that I have given the Low Pay Commission for this year, which makes it clear that when the commission considers an increase, it is not restricted to considering inflation. This year, it will also be able to take into account the increase in earnings.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that self-employed people such as sub-postmasters and postmistresses are not covered by the minimum wage legislation? A Post Office report sent to Members of Parliament shows that the Government's decision to force pensioners and others to have their payments paid into a bank will result in a £550 million loss to the sub-post offices, and that 20,000 sub-postmasters and postmistresses will find their incomes driven below the level of the minimum wage—unless the Secretary of State can replace that money.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, in response to an earlier question, that the maximum that the banks will be coerced into paying is £125 million? Will he tell us by

what authority he will require them to pay that, and whether all the other money will come from the taxpayer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not have a lot to do with the minimum wage.

Mr. Lilley: It has a lot to do with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman that it does not have a lot to do with the minimum wage. I call Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware of an economic collapse following the introduction of the minimum wage, of the kind predicted by Conservative Members? That certainly does not seem to have happened in my part of the country. Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging for the level of the minimum wage to be raised, so as to reduce the amount of Government expenditure, such as the working families tax credit, that effectively subsidises bad employers? We should not be paying out Government money to subsidise poor employers.
May I also say that I deprecate those who would try to hold down the level of the minimum wage to £5? It really ought to be far more than that.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is as generous as ever in these matters. It is probably better for the Low Pay Commission to consider any increase in the light of the labour market and the economic conditions at the time.
It is a bit rich for Conservative Members, who campaigned against the introduction of the national minimum wage, to be critical when certain groups are not included. The important point, which reflects points raised by my hon. Friends, is that the national minimum wage under this Government is here to stay. The Low Pay Commission will be there to recommend increases when it is appropriate to do so. We must ensure that the successful way in which the provision has been implemented since April last year can be continued, and that millions of families can continue to benefit from having the dignity of work that is properly paid, and having a safety net below which no one should fall in terms of the income that they receive for their hard labour.

Intellectual Property

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What guidance he gives to businesses about protection of their intellectual property; and if he will make a statement. [144534]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): Advice on intellectual property matters is delivered by the Patent Office to a wide audience of inquirers, including business. The Patent Office produces a comprehensive range of literature and has a well established central inquiry unit. Guidance is also available in downloadable form via the internet—if the House can contemplate putting up with such a vile adjective as "downloadable".

Mr. Robertson: Intellectual property theft is estimated to cost industry and business about £8 billion a year,


and there is also evidence of a link with organised crime. The Government consulted on this issue 12 months ago and said that they would introduce legislation to strengthen the legal position. Will the Minister say when he intends to do so?

Dr. Howells: We certainly have been trying to pull together all the enforcement agencies and have formed the Anti-counterfeiting Alliance, in which intellectual property rights play a big part. We shall certainly legislate when we have finished reviewing the situation, although views and perspectives on intellectual property rights in developing countries are different from those in the advanced and industrialised world. However, we are mindful of the dangers of not tightening up intellectual property safeguards as the scams multiply out there in the marketplace.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply because I want to ask about consideration of the new intellectual property rights legislation. Will he ensure that we re-examine the definition of what constitutes intellectual property and separate design from discovery? In particular, I should be grateful if United Kingdom legislation did not go further down the path that has led to the exploitation of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa, where intellectual property rights and patents are being used to deny access to medical care to the millions of HIV sufferers in sub-Saharan Africa.

Dr. Howells: We are very keen that intellectual property rights should accrue to people who have developed new products honestly and as a result of scientific endeavour and engineering expertise. We are certainly not in the business of allowing any multinational corporation to exploit any terrible situation, such as that which my hon. Friend describes, in Africa or anywhere else.

Regulation

Mr. Anthony Steen: What assessment he has made of the cost of regulations and directives emanating from the European Union on small business enterprise in the United Kingdom in each of the past three years. [144535]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all legislation has to undergo a regulatory impact assessment, which does not differentiate the sources of that legislation. Recently revised guidelines on RIAs emphasise the need to think small first in drawing up regulations. On the European aspect, the Government have been successful, through their policy of positive engagement in Europe and through the Lisbon economic summit, in developing the charter for small business, which puts considerable emphasis on the need to improve the regulatory environment not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe.

Mr. Steen: Small businesses are the engine for economic growth in this country, but is the Minister aware of the on-cost to them of enforcing the myriad rules and regulations coming from Europe? That makes us much

less competitive than many other European countries, which do not enforce the rules and regulations on their small businesses as efficiently and effectively as we do. Will she consider perhaps introducing a local appeal mechanism so that small firms that feel aggrieved by officialdom and the enforcement of regulations can appeal to the local magistrates court for a view as to whether rules and regulations from Europe are being over-zealously pursued?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman suggests yet another layer of bureaucracy and yet another on-cost for small firms. He seems to have failed to notice that employment in this country is at its highest, at just under 28 million. A million jobs haw been created since May 1997 and nearly three quarters of people of working age are employed. The data on VAT registration suggest that business start-ups are at historically high levels. That is a consequence of the economic stability generated by Government policy and a consequence of the move towards completing the single market.
Single market legislation alone has created an environment whereby there is one set of rules instead of 15 different sets for 15 different countries. The Government are committed to reducing the regulatory impact on small firms and to ensuring that small firms in this country can benefit from the biggest domestic market in the world—the European Union, which has 350 million consumers.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Opposition Members and small firms that those who whine and bleat that regulations are wrong per se are themselves wrong? A lot of the regulations that we must insist on keeping protect health and safety and basic, fundamental employment rights. Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear that the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and those who claim to represent small firms have got it wrong if they are prepared to sell the basic rights of ordinary workers?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Conservative Members are anxious to concentrate on the costs of regulation; they never concentrate on the benefits. Every time a consumer picks up a can or packet in a supermarket and sees a sell-by date, it is a direct consequence of our membership of the European Union.
We should look objectively at the levels of regulation in this country—regulation that helps people to enjoy a much better standard of living. A regular Institute of Management development survey asks businesses to describe their perception of regulation in different countries. The latest results, for 1999–2000, show that the United Kingdom ranks second among G7 countries in terms of its regulatory environment, just behind Canada and ahead of the United States.
We impose sensible regulation, and it has benefits. Yes, there are costs, but we will reduce them, and we will certainly ensure that the people of this country enjoy the benefits.

Mr. Alan Duncan: As I draw myself up to my full imperial height of five foot six, and


a quarter, may I request from the Minister an answer that we failed to secure from her hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs?
The Minister's noble Friend Lord Haskel has said:
the Government do not intend that people shall be locked up simply because they do not use metric units of measurement … It is where local authorities find evidence of fraud or the consumer being misled that such matters can be brought before the court.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 742.]
Was the Minister's colleague right? Without giving a judgment on the precise details of the Sunderland court case, will the Minister none the less agree that it results from an absurd and unnecessary prosecution? There was no consumer complaint, and the only victims in the case are freedom and common sense.

Mrs. Liddell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise the matter, not least because it is still before the courts, but also because the regulation was introduced by the Government whom he supported.
I am happy to rise to my full height of 1.6 m, which is 5 ft 4 in—and as you will know, Mr. Speaker, "guid gear comes in wee bulk".

Energy Market

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What measures he is taking to ensure the liberalisation of the energy market. [144536]

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government have completed the passage of the Utilities Act 2000. We seek to secure full competition in the supply of gas and electricity and in the generation of electricity, with the benefits being passed on to consumers, while protecting disadvantaged customers and the environment.

Mrs. Gilroy: I know that, especially in cold weather like this, my right hon. Friend shares my anger about the millions of households left in fuel poverty by the Conservative Government's neglect of that important policy area. What steps is she taking to ensure that the liberalised energy market works as well as possible for the fuel poor?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of this Government's first moves was to reduce VAT on fuel, a particularly punitive tax that was imposed on the poorest members of society. There are 35,000

excess deaths in winter that are attributable to the cold. That is why ending fuel poverty is a priority for the present Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the benefits of competition are not yet fairly shared by everyone. The Government are addressing that in a number of ways: there is Ofgem's social action plan, and several industry initiatives have been taken. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today announcing a new initiative from the energy company Innogy—a £10 million programme called "health through warmth", which will potentially help more than 20,000 households in England and Wales to make their homes more energy-efficient so that they can stay warmer at lower cost. [Interruption.] You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that Conservative Members have no interest in these matters. They had no interest in them for 18 years. This Government have not just an interest, but a commitment.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Many in the electricity and gas industries attribute the recent doubling of the wholesale gas price to the interconnector, and to the Government's failure to achieve a liberalisation of the gas market in Europe; but given the gas price increase, how helpful does the Minister think it is to British industry to make it suffer the additional costs of another new tax on its energy bills from 1 April this year, following the imposition of the climate change levy?
If the Minister really does care about the competitiveness of British industry—and she should note that employment has fallen this month, for the first time—should she not join us in calling on the Treasury to scrap this expensive and highly damaging new tax?

Mrs. Liddell: The Government have been keeping a close watch on the progress of gas prices in the past few months, and if there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, we shall not hesitate to take action on it. As for the climate change levy, the hon. Gentleman seems to ignore completely the responsibilities that we have not only as a Government but as members of society to ensure the sensible and most efficient use of energy. For that reason, there has been extensive consultation with industry. My hon. Friends at the Treasury have received numerous representations from intensive energy users and others on the climate change levy.
The hon. Gentleman should be honest with the House on what actions Conservative Members are prepared to take to ensure that the environment is protected for the future and that we have a truly competitive environment, nationally and internationally, for all of our companies, not only those that are intensive energy users.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House for next week is as follows:

MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.

TUESDAY 23 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill.

Motion relating to the establishment of an Inquiry into the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman.

Motion on the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.

WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day].

Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Job Losses in Manufacturing Industry", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to deliver its Public Health Agenda". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Debate on rural and urban White Papers on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.

TUESDAY 30 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY—Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).

Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports.

THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Subject to the approval of the House, Private Members' Bills will be taken on Friday 2 February.

The House will wish to be reminded that on Monday 29 January, there will be a debate relating to Members of the European Parliament and the Audit of Expenditure by EP Political Groups in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

Monday 29 January 2001:

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 9712/00, Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (b) 9560/00, Audit of expenditure by EP political groups. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000) and HC 28-ii (2000–01).]

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. In the Queen's Speech debate, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition drew to the House's

attention the glaring omission from the Speech of a Bill to reform adoption law. In February 2000, No. 10 Downing street said that the Prime Minister had personally taken charge of Government policy on adoption law. As the Leader of the House will be aware, yesterday, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister promised to legislate in this Session to reform the laws on adoption.
Therefore—although I do not wish to put the Leader of the House in a position in which she has to be coy about the general election date—I was rather surprised that she did not say in today's business statement when such a Bill will be presented to Parliament. Given the seriousness of the issue, and the fact that such a Bill would have cross-party support, I hope that the Prime Minister's promise of a Bill was not yet another of his promises; that, yesterday, he was not simply jumping on another bandwagon that he saw rolling; and that we can expect that, however short may be the time between now and the end of the Session, the Prime Minister's word is his bond.
I wonder, too, whether the Leader of the House could throw some light on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000, which was listed for debate on Tuesday's Order Paper. That debate had only started when, because of time pressure, under Standing Order 17(2), Mr. Speaker decided that further debate on the order should be deferred. The House has waited a long time to debate the order. In a High Court case, the judge, Mr. Justice Jackson found on behalf of the National Union of Teachers against the Department for Education and Employment, and said that the Secretary of State had improperly bypassed Parliament. Therefore, when the opportunity to debate the order last Tuesday night was lost, we expected that the order would have been reinstated pretty rapidly for next week's business. I hope that the Leader of the House will reassure us that there will be a full and proper debate on that very important matter.
The right hon. Lady will know, as will the rest of the House, that hon. Members' postbags are full of constituents' letters about matters appertaining to Equitable Life. This the third week running that I have raised this matter, and the right hon. Lady said last week that she would pass on to her colleagues the grave concern in the House about the advice given by the Treasury to Equitable Life, and about the conduct of the Financial Services Authority. I hope that the right hon. Lady will find Government time for a debate on this important matter.
Finally, will the Leader of the House note that no fewer than 43 MPs representing Scottish constituencies voted in the third Division after the hunting debate last night? The vote was on banning hunting in England and Wales, and 37 of those hon. Members supported that ban. I hope that the right hon. Lady will find Government time to complete the Government's unfinished devolution business. The present situation is clearly unfavourable to England and needs to be sorted out.

Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Lady asks about the issue of adoption. She is right to say that the matter was not included in the Queen's Speech. I can assure her that a great deal of serious work is under way to try to prepare fresh legislation on adoption, but the House will recognise that it is extremely important to get the matter right. We will take the time that is needed to prepare that legislation.
The hon. Lady spoke about people jumping on bandwagons. There was a classic example of that yesterday, and I am not sure that she was entirely wise to raise the matter. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday made the generous offer to support a piece of legislation and ease its passage through the House. The same offer must have been made three or four times by the right hon. Gentleman or other Opposition Front Benchers—most recently in respect of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. I see that the hon. Lady is nodding in agreement.
However, what happens is that the Opposition do not deliver the promised support. Indeed, they spend time filibustering and opposing those Bills, claiming that they have discovered something wrong with them. The precedent is not encouraging, but the reason why the hon. Lady may have been unwise to raise the matter is that, at the moment, we have no time I or private Members' legislation. That is because Opposition Members keep objecting to the motion to provide time for private Members' Bills.
It is hypocrisy for the Leader of the Opposition to offer support to a private Member's Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is out of order for the right hon. Lady to use that word. Perhaps she should withdraw it.

Mrs. Beckett: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It is not a word that I should have used. However, the House as a whole understands the purport of the Leader of the Opposition's observations.
The hon. Lady asked what would happen with the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000. Yet again, the words that come to mind are "hoist with your own petard". The order was not debated at greater length on Tuesday because Opposition Members took so much time debating other issues. Obviously, it is open to them to make that choice, but the Government are under no compulsion to reintroduce subjects for debate which Opposition Members do not debate because they spend time wasting time.
The hon. Lady asked about Equitable Life. I hope that she is aware that, on 19 December, the Economic Secretary announced that the Financial Services Authority is preparing a report on these matters, which will be published. She should also be aware—although I fully accept that it has not had a great deal of publicity—that the Treasury Committee announced this week that it will hold an inquiry into these matters. Clearly, the matter is under consideration and I fear that I cannot offer time in the immediate future for such a debate.
Finally, the hon. Lady referred to Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies taking part in the votes yesterday evening. We do not have two-tier membership of the House—we are all full Members here at Westminster. Whenever the hon. Lady or her friends raise the matter, they talk about how wrong it is to have Scottish or Welsh MPs taking part here when we have devolved government in Scotland and Wales, but, remarkably, they never mention Northern Ireland. Not only do we have devolved government there now, but we had devolved government when the votes of Northern Irish MPs brought down the last Labour Government.

Mr. Barry Jones: What opportunities will there be next week to raise the very real

and serious difficulties in Wales with regard to steel? Does my right hon. Friend know that Corns, Europe's largest steel producer, is proving to be a brutal, cynical and shareholder-orientated company, which has cast a dark cloud over the future of Shotton steelworks in my constituency? Will she tell the chairman of Corns that Shotton steelworks cold strip mill must not close? The 300 jobs there are very valuable. Britain needs a strong steel industry—Corus will destroy it.

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that the fears of my right hon. Friend, who has fought long and hard for the steelworkers in his constituency, will prove to be misplaced. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is following these matters closely and has been engaged in extensive discussions with the company. The company previously highlighted what we understand to be perfectly reasonable concerns about the exchange rate, but now that that has turned its favour, it is discussing restructuring per se.
The Government will continue to monitor these issues and to do everything that we can to persuade Corns to recognise the very effective work that is carried on in the steel industry in this country where, as I understand it, productivity is very high and, in some cases, higher than in the alternative plant elsewhere in the European Union. I know that my right hon. Friend will continue to fight for his constituents.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recognise that Liberal Democrats and, I suspect, Members on both sides of the House as well as the public, are anxious that the reform of the adoption law does not become a matter with which the Front Benches can play games? Just as it is deplorable that babies and young children are being used in a personal tug-of-war, it would be unsatisfactory if the reform became a matter of party conflict.
Will the Leader of the House look very carefully at the timetable for next Tuesday? The Liberal Democrat education motion, which has already been referred to, has been put in the graveyard slot in the middle of the night. It looks very much as if next Tuesday's motion will be put in exactly the same position and that there will not be a proper debate on transparency in local government. [Interruption.] I thought that the Conservatives were interested in that, but apparently not.
When are we to have the long-awaited Government response on the Phillips report on BSE and the debate? Will the Leader be certain to indicate as soon as possible when that will take place? It is an extremely important report that deals not only with the devastation in the livestock industry, but with £4 billion of taxpayers' money. The report makes it quite clear that the recent disclosure of an organophosphates connection—as a result of that report—is important in a number of other respects, while the dismissal of scrapie as a main problem is equally important.
Finally, when does the Leader of the House anticipate that the Government will introduce this year's Finance Bill, and when does she expect to complete it?

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that adoption is not a matter on which there are party political differences—I hope that the whole House shares


that view. There will, no doubt, be differences within, as well as between, the parties about the precise nature of proposals that may be made, because these are difficult and complex issues. I say that with some feeling. As someone who once whipped through Parliament a change in the law on adoption, I am conscious that it is extremely important to get the legal proposals right. We all want to proceed with the matter as soon as possible, but getting the proposals as right as we can is more important than the precise time, although the Government will move as speedily as possible.
I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses about Tuesday's business, but there is no reason whatever why the business scheduled for that day should not be dealt with expeditiously as well as thoroughly and within a reasonable amount of time. Of course, nothing that we can do will make Members deal with business expeditiously; if they choose, as a tactic, to waste time, time will be wasted. The Government have provided a proper amount of time.
I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of initiating a debate on the Phillips report on BSE as early as we can. Work is continuing. Last week, he may have heard me remind the House that the Phillips report comprised 16 volumes. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it absolutely plain that he wanted to take sufficient time to consider the report. However, we have no hesitation in saying that, once the report has been fully considered, there will indeed be a debate as soon as we can reasonably arrange it.
Finally, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the Finance Bill. I assure him, however, that it will be completed.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend may know that I have been submitting lists of the names of men in the United Kingdom who have either been charged with, or charged with and imprisoned for, rapes when, subsequently, women have changed their story and told the truth. It is a major problem that innocent men are going to prison for rape. May we have a debate on that as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is always extremely harmful in a society when people are charged—let alone imprisoned—for a crime of which they are not guilty. Mistakes are bound to occur from time to time, but that must always be harmful to our justice system and to the country as a whole. I understand the concern my hon. Friend expresses. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future; he may, however, find an opportunity for the debate in Westminster Hall.

Sir George Young: In next week's business, the right hon. Lady announced the Second Reading of a number of Government Bills. One of the reasons behind the extremely controversial changes introduced to our procedure by the Government—the programming of all Bills—was to inject some certainty into the legislative programme. Will she, therefore, tell

the House which of the Bills that have received Second Reading she expects to complete their stages through Parliament by the end of March?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not at all sure that I can give the right hon. Gentleman, a list to the end of March. I can certainly tell him that, up to the present, 18 Bills have been introduced—eight in the Lords and 10 in the Commons—and that one has already received Royal Assent. It is already c clear both that the Government have a full and measured programme and that it is being well delivered by an efficiently running Administration.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion No. 162 on food safety?
[That this House endorses the view of Judge Peter Heppell QC who reportedly told the Crown Court in Hull in December 2000 that a review of the penalties for contravening the Food Safety Act should be put in train; considers the sentences available to the Court in cases where adulterated and rotten meat destined for the petfood market ends up in food for humans, are totally inadequate; and calls on the Government to act swiftly to increase the powers available to the courts, and to restore public confidence in the food industry.]
It was prompted by the horrendous case, which came to trial in Hull in December, of the rotten, contaminated poultrymeat scam. Five individuals were sent to prison, having made a £2 million profit from that dreadful business. The ringleader got seven years, and Judge Peter Heppel said that, although he was minded to pass a double-digit sentence, he was unable to do so.
Will my right hon. Friend urge the Home Secretary, or perhaps the Secretary of State for Health, to make a statement to the House on the penalties that would be appropriate in such food safety cases? Is it not astonishing that, under the Food Safety Act 1990, only two individuals have been sent to prison—one for four months and one for three months? In the Hull case, the prosecution had to rely on conspiracy to defraud, which is not necessarily the most appropriate charge. I very much hope that either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Health can tell us the Government's intentions on that matter.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and I believe that the whole House shares his horror at the case to which he refers. The descriptions were so revolting as to almost put one off eating, never mind eating the substances in question.
I believe that this would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend knows that we have now introduced much greater safeguards for the food industry, and that the meat sector is already one of the most strictly regulated. This is now very much a matter for the Food Standards Agency, which has the power to recommend changes in the law and, I believe, would not hesitate to do so should it consider that they were necessary. However, my hon. Friend might like to take up the matter with the Food Standards Agency, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the question asked by my


hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the West Lothian question, the Leader of the House, in her reply, introduced the killer fact of Northern Ireland votes in 1979. Would she, on reflection, agree that devolution at Stormont finished in 1972, and that the only relevance of Northern Ireland votes to the fall of Lord Callaghan's Administration was the decision of the then Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to come and abstain in person?

Mrs. Beckett: No; I would not accept that. I would simply make the point again. What the right hon. Gentleman says does not conflict with the basic point that I am making, which is that it has very often been a matter of great satisfaction to the Conservative party to be able to have, and to rely on, the votes of Northern Ireland Members, when there was devolution and when there was not devolution. Throughout the course of the Government led first by the late Lord Wilson and then by Lord Callaghan, the Conservative party relied very frequently indeed on Northern Ireland Members' votes.
I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman and his party that it has never been the policy of the Conservative party, during the years when it supported devolution, to call for two-tier membership of the House, and that it has shown considerable inconsistency on that issue, both in that matter and in its approach to the actions of Northern Ireland Members. I wonder when the Conservatives will tell Members of the Ulster Unionist party and other parties that they do not intend to allow them to play a full part in the House, either.

Mr. James Wray: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 204?
[That this House is appalled at the shocking revelations of child abuse throughout Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales; condemns the professional people entrusted with the care and wellbeing of the most vulnerable children in society, who have failed to assure their safety, need and protection; and recommends that there be a public inquiry throughout the United Kingdom, the setting up of a commission in every region throughout the United Kingdom similar to the one set up in Ireland to counsel and advise abused victims and that the victims be granted legal aid in order to bring abusers to justice.]
As a Member of Parliament, I feel horrified and ashamed that we allow child abuse to continue for years. Thousands of children have been abused and a lot of the abuse has gone undetected. It is time that the House and the Government apologised, especially for some of the Government-run homes where children are being abused. It is time that we held a national public inquiry. It is time that we took a leaf out of the book of southern Ireland Members of Parliament: they set up commissions.
I hope that the Leader of the House will allow time to debate child abuse fully, in order to bring these perverts and paedophiles to justice. We owe it to our children. Talk is no use; we need action. Every national and international newspaper is crying out for vengeance, in order to rid the country of this filth.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House shares my hon. Friend's abhorrence of the events that, tragically, have yet again been reported, in which a child undergoes

terrible suffering. He knows that it is a matter of constant discussion. Indeed, I believe that an inquiry into that particular case is being pursued, to determine what we can do to impede the actions of those who pose such a threat to children.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but it strikes me that this is exactly the type of issue, which commands support across the parties, on which my hon. Friend or others of his view might seek a debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The first Bill that the Government introduced in this Session was the Hunting Bill. The Leader of the House has said that the Government have introduced 18 Bills. When can we expect the adoption Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong. [Interruption.] The first Bill debated was the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, which is proceeding very well through its stages in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's question does not represent the start of a pretence by the Conservative party that, in some way, there is a party political difference on adoption—or, indeed, on child welfare. There is none and, frankly, it would be shabby and damaging to adoption if the Conservative party intended to continue with that tactic.

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: As a member of one of the wealth-generating professions—engineering—may I ask when we shall have an opportunity to discuss the manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and its relationship to the ever-growing university budgets, developing research to underpin that manufacturing?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is a qualified engineer. Indeed, she repaired one of the lifts in Norman Shaw recently. Of course it is very important that we continue to give the right attention to the manufacturing industry. She is right to draw attention to the additional support that is being made available, as a result of the investment forthcoming under the Government, to underpin the research and development that that industry needs. I fear that I cannot undertake to hold such a debate in Government time in the near future, but I draw to her attention the fact that the Opposition have chosen, perhaps unwisely, to debate such issues next week, and she might like to take part in that debate.

Mr. John Hayes: On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which related to the order on teachers' so-called performance-related pay, I am obliged to remind the Leader of the House of the relevant Standing Order No. 17(2), which states that if the Speaker, in his wisdom, determines that there has been insufficient debate and defers the matter,
the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting.
Is the Leader of the House unfamiliar with that Standing Order, or do the Government simply not want to debate teachers' performance-related pay, because it has been a fiasco from beginning to end and stands out even among the litany of conspiracies and cock-ups that characterise


the Government? The order will affect 200,000 people, and the House should have time to debate it fully and properly.

Mrs. Beckett: I agree that the House should debate that important issue, and I am only sorry that Opposition Members chose not to do so when the opportunity arose.

Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a betting firm is telling callers that under no circumstances can it envisage the Tories winning the next election and that the head of that betting firm has made, or is about to make, a very large donation to the Tories? Perhaps that could be described as a loss leader. Given that I suggested that individual donations should be capped when a large donation was about to be made to the Labour party 10 days ago—at least I am consistent—is there not a case for capping individual donations during the next stage of political party finance reform?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he is showing complete consistency and makes an important and serious point. As he knows, the capping of donations is raised from time to time, but that will be a matter for the Electoral Commission in future, because of the way in which the Labour party has strengthened the controls on party funding, which the Conservative party refused to discuss when in power for reasons that are daily becoming all too apparent.

Mr. Stephen Day: Given the fact that, inexplicably, the right hon. Lady seems to think that the Government's failure to introduce an adoption Bill was the Opposition's fault, can she tell the House what the Government's attitude will be to the Adoption Bill—a private Member's Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot. I am not familiar with the text and content of the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for promoting further discussion of such an important and serious issue, but the Government will obviously have to consider her Bill if the House decides to debate it.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is on the Order Paper.

Mrs. Beckett: If we do not pass the motion that provides time to debate private Member's Bills, it can be on the Order Paper, but it will not be debated.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that service men and women who have been killed in the line of duty have made a supreme sacrifice for their country? Can we have a debate based on the proposal of Rita Restorick, whose son was killed by the Provisional IRA while serving in the forces, that a posthumous medal should be issued in such circumstances? If the Americans can award the purple heart posthumously, surely the House can consider taking similar action?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not especially familiar with the rationale

behind the rules that govern such a proposal, but I think that the whole House would share his attitude towards those people who have been honourable enough to give their lives to defend their country. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: With the approach of the general election, the electorate will clearly wish to form a view on the value of assurances given by the Prime Minister. That being so, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on his previous comments on foxhunting? The House would like to ask him why he has often said in public that the previous Bill was stopped in the other place, when the rest of us know that that was not the case.

Mrs. Beckett: I have always assumed that everyone knew perfectly well that that private Member's Bill was stopped because of the clear statements from the House of Lords that, were the Government to allow it to continue or be discussed in any way, not only would it never reach the statute book, but the other place would wreck the rest of the Government's legislative programme. As that included the national minimum wage, which the Conservatives now pretend to support, the Government were not prepared to allow that risk to be taken.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the current legal processes in Chile to bring General Pinochet to justice. Will she find time in the near future to have a debate on the Floor of the House about the situation with regard to William Beaosire and Father Michael Woodward, who were British nationals who died under Pinochet's regime? Will she also urge the Foreign Office and its Ministers to release all documents on Britain's relations with Chile between 1973 and 1990, and those that relate to Operation Condor, which was the terror regime that Pinochet instigated throughout southern Cone? The release of those documents will undoubtedly assist the cause of those people who seek to restore democracy and human rights to Chile.

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House was shocked and appalled at the treat vent of those nationals, as well as of many other people in Chile under the rule of General Pinochet. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to have that matter further examined now, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it in the near future. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but my first reaction is that all the papers that he wants released are from the previous Administration's time in government and we have only limited access to them.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House will know that, next week, 30 hon. Members—20 of whom are, on a proportional basis, Labour Members—are required by Parliament to attend the Council of Europe Assembly in Strasbourg and will therefore be unable to vote in the new-fangled deferred voting system on Wednesday. As that has constitutional


implications, can she arrange for a debate—obviously not next week, but perhaps the week after—for that matter to be examined? If she says that that has always been the case in relation to votes, it is in fact a different constitutional matter with regard to deferred voting.

Mrs. Beckett: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who is a serious Member of the House, but on a first examination of his remarks, I do not perceive the constitutional difference that he detects arising as a result of deferred voting. I undertake to consider his remarks, but I fear that I do not detect the great concern that he has identified.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, yesterday in Prime Minister's Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and I asked about compensation for miners? We received a decent answer from the Prime Minister, but unfortunately miners are still not being paid. Will she ask the Department of Trade and Industry to hold an inquiry into what has gone wrong with the compensation payments, so that we can find out why miners are not being paid and who is to blame? It seems that one person blames another. A good inquiry and a statement to the House would be not go amiss with many hon. Members.

Mrs. Beckett: The whole Government understand the concern that my hon. Friend and other Labour Members have frequently expressed. Indeed, he will know that action has been taken to try to speed up the payment of the claims. I fear, however, that much of the answer to his question probably lies in the fact that this is the largest body of personal injury litigation in the history of the United Kingdom. No matter how great the pressure that we exert on those responsible, it will take time to deal with the issues. Although I cannot find time for a further debate on the matter in the near future, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to keep up the pressure.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: On 19 December the House accepted a regulation to allow the extension of embryo research, which is usually to be done by therapeutic cloning. That decision was made on the basis of an assurance given by the Minister for Public Health that reproductive cloning would remain illegal. I understand that that statement is to be challenged in the courts. It is an extremely important matter, especially as the House of Lords will consider it next week. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come to the House in the week beginning 29 January to make a statement on the outcome of the court case?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important point. He was right to say that it was made clear in the debate that we do not allow reproductive cloning in this country. There is serious concern about the issues raised by the court case, but it is always difficult—and perhaps risky—to prejudge the outcome of any such case. However, I assure him that the Government will keep the matter under review. Should the outcome of the case in any way call the matter into question, the Government will be prepared to take steps, because we remain strongly of the view that human reproductive cloning should not be allowed. It will not be permitted.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review the recent changes made by

the House to the Standing Orders for the programming and timetabling of Bills, to see whether the changes are working as intended? Has she had time to consider the implications of the objection that was made last night to the motion on the change in membership of the Administration Committee? Does she consider, as I do, that it is another devious way of disrupting business, which the Opposition should not be allowed to get away with?

Mr. Day: Should we all just go home?

Mrs. Beckett: Actually, we would all be very grateful if some of them were to go home. Of course, I undertake to review the way in which the experiment is working. Indeed, I know that my hon. Friend will recall—unlike some of those present, she paid close attention to the debates on these matters—that the procedures were made experimental precisely so that we could see how they worked in practice and assess whether further refinements and changes needed to be made. Should that prove to be the case, we shall propose such changes to the House.
The implications of the unusual rejection of the proposal for changing the membership of the Administration Committee will have to be considered. Given the emotion that was clearly felt by some hon. Members about the issue that we debated yesterday, I am not sure whether that rejection was a cunning plan or simply a knee-jerk reaction by people in a bad temper late at night, but no doubt time will tell.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate, if not next week then certainly in the near future, on the fate of the Kingskerswell bypass? She will recall that I have mentioned the matter before. With a view to trying to secure a debate and to find out what was happening, I raised it in the House on 21 December, when the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said at column 677 that he could promise a letter from the relevant Minister straight away, but not the bypass. I commend him for being so straightforward.
I do not chide the Minister for not promising the bypass, but he rightly gave an assurance that I would receive a letter, and I have heard nothing. I understand that Christmas has intervened, but it is vital that my constituents know what the Government's attitude to the bypass is, and if the relevant Minister will not write the letter that he should have written, I hope that the Leader of the House will want to arrange a debate so that he can come here and justify himself.

Mrs. Beckett: I do indeed recall the hon. Gentleman's raising that issue, and I can perfectly understand his concern on behalf of his constituents, because if I remember correctly, he said that it has been a matter of contention for several years. I am extremely sorry to learn that he has not received the correspondence that he sought. I assure him that I will pursue the matter in the hope that I can get him a reply. Who knows? If a Labour Government are returned to office and investment continues, perhaps he will even get his bypass.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am conscious of the fact that this is an Opposition day, but I want to take the question


of every Member who has risen, so I ask for hon. Members' co-operation in ensuring that all questions are brief.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I hope to set a good example. May I redouble the request for a debate on manufacturing industry, not about the scandal of the job losses between 1979 and 1997, but about the possible asset stripping by Corns of high-quality, high-productivity jobs at Llanwern?

Mrs. Beckett: I am conscious that jobs at Llanwern are indeed of high quality, as is the successful enterprise there, so I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I fear, however, that I cannot add anything to what I said earlier about a debate.

Mr. John Bercow: I shall try to follow your instruction, Mr. Speaker. Could we have an urgent statement in Government time on what I might describe as the proposed funds for federalism provided for by the treaty of Nice as it relates to the funding of political parties? Does the Leader of the House accept that, as far as many hon. Members are concerned, such proposals would constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the conduct of domestic political affairs? Does she accept also that, although many hon. Members acknowledge that there may be a case—and a weak one at that—for state funding of political parties, they can see no case whatever for super-state funding of political parties?

Mrs. Beckett: Having heard the statement by the Commission spokesman, and having read a clear statement by the Commission, I believe that Conservative Members have misread the rules to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, and that no such provision exists. There is no suggestion that any party will be or could be debarred from receiving funding.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the operation of the insurance industry, particularly in the light of the astonishing decision by Norwich Union to deny mortgage protection insurance to MG Rover workers on the grounds that it does not consider the company's future to be sufficiently secure? Does she agree that that is wrong, not only because MG Rover is on course to achieve its business plan, but because insurance companies should not cherry-pick customers as they have done both in this case and during the recent flooding incidents?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern. We all recognise that the insurance industry sometimes has difficult judgments to make, but it seems extraordinary, if these reports are true, that the company in this case is making such a misjudgment and that it has adopted such a policy. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate, but I remind him that Treasury questions are next week and he may have a chance to raise the matter then.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As teachers north of the border are to receive a pay increase of no less than 21.5 per cent. over three years, and as

student fees at universities north of the border were abolished not so long ago, could the Leader of the House persuade that great parliamentary escapologist the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement about the constitutional implications? My constituents in London are paying subsidies to free riders north of the border while they are seeing an ever declining number of teachers in their schools. This is an outstandingly unjust state of affairs.

Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman's constituents are not seeing an ever declining number of teachers in their schools, or at least they will not now. That was the position that we inherited from the Conservative Government, but thanks to the investment that has been put in by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the encouragement of recruitment into teacher training, the situation is starting to turn around.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks for a special debate on these matters. We are talking about the consequence of devolution, which we debated extensively and at length for some months in the early years of this Parliament.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Can my right hon. Friend find tine for a debate on the American national missile defence programme? It would give the Government and the majority of hon. Members the opportunity of saying that we have no intention of following George W. Bush and the Leader of the Opposition in any "Dumb and Dumber" combination in reckless pursuit of the armageddon vote.

Mrs. Beckett: Although I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on a proposal that has not yet even been formulated.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on small businesses? I declare an interest, in that I own one. A debate would enable us to expose the enormous amount of extra rules and regulations with which small businesses have to contend, and to get to grips with whether the Government are serious about persecuting greengrocers throughout the country because they are complying with consumers' wishes and selling fruit and veg in pounds and ounces. I wondered why the Government were so keen to clear prisons of thousands of convicted criminals. It appears now that they are creating space so that greengrocers can fill them over the forthcoming months.

Mrs. Beckett: Oh dear. It is most unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should choose to chide the Government for the implementation of a directive that was agreed by the previous Government in 1989. They implemented it in 1994, without any steps being taken to obtain any derogation of any sort. In 1999, when it came time for the directive that the Conservative Government had agreed to be implemented, the present Government negotiated a derogation so that its full application would not take effect until 2009. If the position had been left as agreed by the Conservative Government, the greengrocer in question would be committing an offence if he even displayed prices per pound, never mind charging on that basis.

Mr. David Drew: To be brief, I associate myself with the question of the hon. Member for North


Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), in that we need an urgent debate on the Phillips report, not least because a major and serious international issue has ensued and because the Food Standards Agency has issued its own report, and is looking to change the regulations. A debate cannot come a moment too soon. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that the entire House shares my hon. Friend's concern and his desire that the matter should be fully aired as soon as possible. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is just as keen as he is to pursue the issue and to have a debate. He will tell the House as soon as he can when we are in a position to have the debate properly and fully conducted.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the relationship between the state and the voluntary sector? Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an important announcement to a group of people at No. 11. If he had made the announcement to the House, we would have been able to show how laughable was one of his statements. He said that the role of Government would
shift even more from the old "directing and controlling" to enabling and empowering voluntary action.
That statement is entirely inconsistent with the Government's ruling that those who wish to gain access to criminal records will get it free if they are in the state sector, while those in the voluntary sector will have to pay £10 each.

Mrs. Beckett: The charges remain under discussion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only a few moments ago, the issue of child protection was raised. It was raised by a Labour Member, but I know that his view is shared throughout the House. The hon. Gentleman refers to an important aspect of child protection. The statement made by the Chancellor was announced is the House through the perfectly proper medium of a written answer. I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on these matters, but no doubt there will be opportunities to raise them.

Mr. John Cryer: I reinforce the earlier request from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and my right hon Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for a full debate on manufacturing. I am keen to hear the response of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to such a debate, as he has refused to meet me to discuss 3,000 job losses at Ford Dagenham, and has done nothing to call into question the betrayal of Ford workers by the management, apart from trotting out the Tory line that that is a decision for the company in the light of its commercial responsibilities. He should come to the House and answer questions.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to learn that my hon. Friend has been unsuccessful in obtaining the meeting that he sought. He says that Secretaries of State should come to the House and answer, and of course they do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

was in the House today answering questions, and Ministers from his Department will take part in the debate next week.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: There are two advantages to be had if the Leader of the House would grant us a debate on the sinister proposals that are now emerging with respect to the Commission seeking to fund the Labour party: first, she would be able to justify in debate her assertion that there is no such proposal, and secondly, were she to seek relief from the scrutiny of the debate, she could interrupt the proceedings at 7 o'clock to move her motion on Friday sittings, which would get the Government out of that difficulty.

Mrs. Beckett: The Government are not in any difficulty. We have been moving the motion regularly and consistently. It is the Opposition who apparently object to it.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the proposals that are being discussed were made under article 191, which states that the provisions
shall apply on the same basis to all the political forces represented in the European Parliament.
There is no truth in the suggestion that that is particularly advantageous to the Labour party or to any other party in this country. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers making noises off. If members of the Conservative party are incapable of reading the proposals accurately, it is their problem, not ours.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on a matter that concerns many of my constituents—the scaremongering and shroud waving in our local newspapers with regard to the future of King George hospital in my constituency? Will she draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to today's Ilford Recorder, in which the prospective Conservative candidate is described as an "April Fool" for predicting that my hospital is to close in April, when in fact two extra wards have been established in that hospital in the past three months by the Labour Government?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is always harmful to public confidence in the health service, which is so important to the entire country, when scares are raised entirely unjustifiably, as he described. I am pleased to learn that there has been additional investment in his hospital, as in so many other hospitals throughout the land, including those in Opposition Members' constituencies, although one would not think so, to hear them talk.
I fear that, important though the issue is, I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it, but my hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter in Westminster Hall.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Prime Minister explaining his typically gutless decision to refuse to defend the record of his Government in a televised debate with the Leader of the Opposition?

Mrs. Beckett: The Opposition are on a hiding to nothing when they try to pretend that the Prime Minister


has anything to fear from facing the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else in debate. I cannot help recalling the many occasions on which Opposition Members have claimed that, in some way, under the present Prime Minister, our system of government is becoming presidential rather than parliamentarian, and condemned us on those grounds. We have debates and exchanges in the House every week. That is where the principal focus of debate is and will remain.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House and on television that all the costs to householders of the recent flooding in north Yorkshire and elsewhere will be paid by the Government. Will she, please, arrange for him to come to the Dispatch Box to explain to the House why the Government are not paying that bill?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say that I do not think that the hon. Lady accurately represents what the Deputy Prime Minister said. What he said was that local authorities, which obviously incurred substantial costs in dealing with flooding, would have those costs reimbursed in full. I do not think that it was ever claimed that every individual would—[Interruption.] That is a different matter. If the hon. Lady cares to write to me, I shall certainly draw her concerns to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is important not to give people the wrong impression as to what has been said or what is likely to be done.

Points of Order

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we all know, there have been too many occasions in the past three and a half years when Opposition Members, and many Labour Back Benchers, have had to complain about the Government's dereliction of their fundamental duty of accountability and basic courtesy to the House of Commons.
There was a bad case of that yesterday when the Government held a press conference on British participation in the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the joint strike fighter aircraft, a project of which we are very much in favour in principle. The Government did not make a statement to the House, despite there being no other statement yesterday, so they could easily have done so.
I fear that the Government's excuse will be that they answered a planted written question. and, in so doing, had the hon. Member to whom that answer was addressed been available at 3.30 pm he would have been in the same position as journalists in terms of knowing what was going on. I hope that you will agree that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to behave, and that such minimalist, legalistic and cynical treatment of Parliament should not be encouraged in future.
There is a real practical problem here because there are some major issues in relation to this important project, such as the impact on the defence budget of more than £1 billion being allocated to it; such as the protection available to us if the new American Administration cancel the project; such as the availability of the new technology to British subcontractors and partners; and strategic export controls.
We cannot raise any of those matters and, what is more, many hon. Members on both sides of the House representing seats with aerospace facilities in them are naturally concerned about the implications of this for the future of their constituents and how the matter has been handled by the Government. None of that has been raised and the Government have buried it entirely and simply substituted a press conference.
Is there anything, that you, Mr. Speaker, can do to try to encourage the Government, at this 11th hour in this Parliament, to set slightly higher standards in discharging their responsibilities to Parliament in the future?

Mr. Paul Keetch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, on the previous occasion when the Government announced major procurement issues, I hose matters were to be found on the BBC website before they were discussed in the House? If that could happen, and if the Secretary of State for Defence could attend a press conference yesterday, why was not the right hon. Gentleman at the House last week for the statement on depleted uranium, or for the start of the Armed Forces Bill? Surely he should come to the House more regularly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) gave me notice of his point of order. It is for Ministers to decide whether to make an oral statement or to give a written answer. There is a


written answer in today's Official Report. I shall look into the timing of its release and the more general issue that he raised.

Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to a question that I asked the Home Secretary on 8 January, a leading Liverpool councillor, Richard Kemp, a senior member of the administration in the city, wrote a letter to you dated 10 January. I know this because he also sent it to local journalists in a press release, and I have now had a chance to see it. In that documentation, he accuses me of misleading the House on the basis of something which he alleges that I said here. However, I did not say it in the House. He also complains that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not do something which our Procedures would have prevented my right hon. Friend from doing in any event.
I consider it a discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, and therefore to the House to use your office as a way of making cheap points. It would have been clear from Hansard that I did not say what I am alleged to have said. A mere smattering of knowledge of our most basic procedures would have indicated to Richard Kemp that his complaints had no substance. Has your office received and dealt with that correspondence, Mr. Speaker? Can you give protection to Members of Parliament who are abused in that way and can you give ad vice to non-Members about when it is, and is not, appropriate to write to you about Members' conduct?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. She has placed her concerns on the record. It would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment on the substance of what she has said. I am, however, sad that a letter to me has been released to the press before I have had an opportunity to reply to it and, indeed, before it has even been received by my office.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter arising

from the conduct of Trade and Industry questions this morning. I listened intently to the supplementary question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and awaited eagerly the Minister's response. However, with the authority of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, you judged that my right hon. Friend's question was out of order. Naturally, all Members accept that ruling. As I would not wish to be subject to a similar ruling in future, I should be most grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would advise me and other Members of why a question about the exclusion of the self-employed from the national minimum wage legislation is irrelevant to Question 7 about the national minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker: A lot has happened since that question was put. However, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I will always seek to guide him.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Charles Clarke and Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to make provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make provision about the disclosure of information relating to criminal matters and about powers of search and seizure; to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Terrorism Act 2000; to make provision about the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad; to make provision about the powers of the courts in relation to criminal matters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 29 January, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 31].

Opposition Day

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

Teacher Supply

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business, which is an Opposition Day. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
That this House views with deep concern the crisis of teacher shortages which is hitting schools across the country and which has led to some schools operating a four day week, children being sent home early, increased class sizes and the use of non-specialist and unqualified staff; deplores the Government's complacency in the face of this crisis; notes that many teachers are leaving the profession because of the increased red tape and bureaucratic burdens imposed by this Government; recognises that the teacher shortages are damaging standards in schools; and calls on the Government to revive the teaching profession by getting rid of the excessive bureaucratic burdens faced by teachers, setting schools free and letting teachers teach.
As I start this debate, I would like to pay tribute to the teachers and non-teaching staff in our schools who, today, are having to work even harder in the face of difficult circumstances to ensure that children receive as good an education as possible, given the problem of teacher shortages faced by schools throughout the country. Our debate takes place against the backdrop of a crisis that has all but crippled our education system. In all parts of the country, schools are facing massive problems in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg for, just as worrying, is the impact that the crisis is having on the quality of education that children receive. Behind the headlines, teacher shortages are having a damaging effect on standards in our schools. There is an immediate crisis in teacher supply, but there is also a crisis in the quality of education which our hard-pressed teachers can provide.
We know what the Government's response will be from what they have been saying over the past few weeks. First, they will tell us that there is no crisis, as the Secretary of State did at Education questions last week, when he said:
There is a problem, but not a crisis.—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1220.]
I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. The week before, on 7 January, the Prime Minister said on "Breakfast with Frost" that
in the vast bulk of this country, this is not the great problem.
Of course, it is just the sort of problem that the Prime Minister has refused to debate on television with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. First, the Government say it is not a problem, and then it is a problem, but not a crisis. I wonder what we are going to be told this week? Perhaps the problem is a little bit bigger or has become a little local difficulty. It may even—to use a word that is favoured by new Labour—be a challenge.
It is no good the Government claiming that the problem is merely being whipped up by the Opposition. In a letter

to the Department for Education and Employment, the director of education at the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated:
The threat of sending home pupils because staff are not available to teach them is imminent. We are facing a crisis.
There are many other such concerns. In a letter published on 4 January, David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that teacher recruitment was "approaching meltdown". Last November, Derek Dorey, the head of Selsdon primary school in Croydon, said:
We are facing a crisis of huge proportion in staffing.
On 28 December, John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said:
The teacher supply crisis is having a substantial effect on the education of thousands of pupils in secondary schools. Shortages exist across the country.
Also in December, Professor Alistair Ross, of the Institute for Policy Studies in Education, said:
This is serious, and we are in for a long-term national crisis.
Furthermore, the Minister for School Standards received a letter this morning from the National Union of Teachers, which states:
England and Wales are facing the prospect of the worst shortage in teacher supply for many years.
It is not as if the Government have not been warned about the problem. Time and time again, they were warned by Opposition Members and by members of the teaching profession that teacher shortages had reached alarming levels. It is noticeable that the Government have not initiated in their four years in office a single debate on the teaching profession and the problems that it faces. This is the third such debate, each of which was initiated by the Opposition. In he two Opposition day debates that occurred last year, we urged the Government to take action to prevent a crisis. They have also been urged to do so by the Secondary Heads Association, the other teacher trade unions and other groups.
The Government have been told for many months that the system is close to breaking point, but we can go back even further than that. In October 1997, in a press release on the first report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which dealt with teacher recruitment, the then Chairman, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment and present on the Front Bench, said:
The Committee chose this as its first report because teacher supply is an issue that goes right to the heart of education policy. Sufficient high quality teachers are essential if we are to raise standards in our schools. In our report we conclude that there is a crisis in teacher recruitment.
At that time, however, children were not being sent home early, no schools were completely reliant on supply teachers from abroad or were on four-day weeks and there was no proliferation of unqualified and non-specialist staff. If there was a crisis at a time when schools were operating normally, what on earth is the situation today?

Ms Ruth Kelly: Would the hon. Lady care to compare the current Government's spending on education with that planned by the previous Conservative Government? If the previous Government's plans had been implemented, would there not have been 10,000 fewer teachers than are currently working in our schools?

Mrs. May: I am happy to compare the current Government's spending on education with that of the


previous Conservative Government. The figures show that they are spending less, despite having come into power in May 1997 and promising to spend a greater proportion of the national income on education than the previous Government. I suggest that the hon. Lady pay more attention to her figures and not take the Whips' brief so seriously.
Since all the threats to which I have referred arose, the Government have not taken the necessary action to prevent the crisis from harming the quality of education that our children receive. Indeed, their complacency is breathtaking. It is not as if the figures have not been showing a problem. The Secretary of State's own Department's figures show that recruitment levels have dropped since 1997 and vacancies have been rising. Indeed, official figures show that teacher vacancies have increased by almost 50 per cent. under the Labour Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] The Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards say that that is not true, but those are the official figures released by the Department for Education and Employment.
I can understand the Secretary of State indicating that those figures are not worth trusting. After all, last autumn, when the Department was saying that there were only 1,000 vacancies across the country, a survey by The Times Educational Supplement and the Secondary Heads Association showed that there were 4,000, which is four times the figure produced by the Secretary of State's Department.
We do not have to examine official statistics to know the position: we just need to look at last week's edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which contains 272 pages of job adverts. The Secretary of State is not the only person to distrust his Department's statistics. As the director of learning services at Essex county council said in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman:
Schools have expressed concern about the current definition of a vacancy used by your Department, where any vacant post covered by a contract of one term or less is not counted. This definition does not show the true extent of the problems facing schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Will the hon. Lady confirm for the House and for those interested whose definition that was? I have replied to the director, and presumably through him to his chairman at Essex, pointing out that that is exactly the same definition as that applied by the previous Government.

Mrs. May: If the Secretary of State thinks that it is the wrong definition, why has he not changed it in four years? The answer is that he has not changed it and his official figures do not show the true extent of the problem faced by schools up and down the country. The head teacher of Great Totham primary school in Essex told my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that
the situation is getting desperate; the Government is living in cloud cuckoo land if it says that there is no crisis
When Edmund Burke talked of lies, damned lies and statistics, I can only assume that he was thinking of a future Department for Education and Employment.
Instead of learning lessons from the statistics, the right hon. Gentleman is intent on spinning them. Last week he rubbished figures from the Graduate Teacher Training Registry.

Mr. Blunkett: I was right.

Mrs. May: The right hon. Gentleman says that he was right. This week he has leapt on statistics that show a small increase in the number of applicants. What do those figures reveal? They show a decline in applications for the subjects that are currently desperately short of teachers: mathematics down almost 4 per cent., English down 2 per cent., French down more than 9 per cent. and history down 7.3 per cent.—a rather more worrying figure, given the number of children who, according to a report this morning, do not know who Winston Churchill was. That is the true picture behind the right hon. Gentleman's spin.
Overall figures show a fall on the numbers recorded four years ago. The latest figures for recruits to initial secondary teacher training courses show that over the past four years the number of recruits is down by 1,000.

Mr. Phil Willis: The hon. Lady is giving very much the same speech as was given before Christmas. What proposals does the Conservative party have to resolve this crisis?

Mrs. May: I shall come on to that point. It is fascinating that when the hon. Gentleman discusses education in the House, he does not want to talk about the teacher shortages created by the Labour Government. His friends on the Labour Benches are doing what he wants, but it is time he considered the situation in our schools, which I am describing for his benefit as well as for that of those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Executive has recently given Scottish teachers a 21.5 per cent. increase in salary? That will provoke a recruitment and retention crisis in Northumberland schools, because the difference in salaries on either side of the border will be immense. Northumberland county council will be unable to match such increases because its education authority is among the worst funded in the country—indeed, as far as secondary school pupils are concerned, it receives the lowest funding—and the schools are already having to cope with a £1 million cut in their budgets. The promise of "education, education, education" is wearing very thin in Northumberland.

Mrs. May: It is obvious from what my hon. Friend has said that, far from "education, education, education", Northumberland has cuts, shortages and shortages, and that its children are suffering as a result of the actions of this Government and of the Labour-controlled county council. Our proposals for a national funding formula will help to even out the discrepancies, and to improve the situation of those authorities that suffer from such differences in spending on their children.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I want to make some progress.
The Government have told us that there is not a crisis, because the number of people registering an interest in going into teacher training has been going up. That is all very well, but it does nothing to tackle the problems faced by schools today. Perhaps the Government should consider the evidence of the latest Smithers report, published in December, entitled "Attracting Teachers", and the survey conducted recently by the National Union of Teachers. They show that, of those training to be teachers, some 10 per cent. fail to qualify. Nearly 30 per cent. of those who qualify do not go into teaching, and 7 per cent. of those who go into teaching drop out in the first year. Of every 100 people training to be a teacher, only just over half will go into the classroom for more than a year. An increase in people registering an interest is not going to solve the problem that our schools face today, tomorrow or in the months to come.
There is a crisis now, the situation is worsening and we have nothing but spin and complacency from the Government. The result of the Government's inactivity is plain to see. Schools across the country are in crisis, with head teachers and their staff fighting valiantly to ensure that the damage to our children's education is minimal. The fact that many schools have avoided switching to a four-day week, or worse, is a tribute not to the Government—whose incompetence put the schools in this position in the first place—but to the heroic efforts of the teaching profession.
The head teacher of St. Mary's high school in Cheshunt had faced circumstances in which a third of her pupils were having to lose out on lessons and go home early. She wrote yesterday:
As from Thursday 18th January 2001, it has been possible for all students at St. Mary's High School to return to school for their lessons.
We are grateful to those supply teachers and non-teaching staff, who are making this possible … We thank … our own staff for their dedication and commitment to our students.

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, and she also said:
We thank the local authority and the DfEE for working with us at this difficult time …
We all agree with the thanks that she has given.

Mrs. May: We do, indeed, note the thanks that the head teacher has given. I am sorry that the Secretary of State had to intervene, because I was making the simple point that the teachers are the ones who have borne the brunt of the problem, not the bureaucrats. The teachers are the ones who have to deal with the crisis on a day-to-day basis in the schools, with the children in their classrooms.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons teachers have been flocking out of the profession in recent years is that, too often, the role of teacher has involved an exercise in crowd control? Does she also agree that the Government's guidelines on the legitimate use of physical restraint by teachers when dealing with recalcitrant pupils should reflect the common-sense instincts of the majority of the British people, and not the politically correct prejudices of the liberal establishment?

Mrs. May: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the politically correct prejudices of the liberal

establishment have had a damaging effect on discipline in our schools. That is one of the key issues that teachers cite when they leave the profession.

Mr. James Clappison: The problems experienced by the school to Cheshunt are part of a wider problem affecting Hertfordshire. It is even affecting some of the leading state schools in the county and, indeed, the country, such as Watford grammar school for boys, whose headmaster has said:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to even get shortlists of suitable candidates for teaching positions. We are having to use every means to fill jobs.
The situation in Hertfordshire is extremely serious.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend has illustrated the reality. However, this is a serious problem not just in Hertfordshire but throughout the country. When I was in Cumbria recently, I heard from teachers there about the problems they were experiencing in filling vacancies.

Mr. Derek Twigg: May I ask a simple question? What is the hon. Lady's solution to the problem?

Mrs. May: I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear about the problems that his Government have created, but he is going to have to hear about them.

Mr. Twigg: What will you do?

Mrs. May: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we will do in due course, but first he must hear about the problems caused by his Government's policy. Let me tell him that when he goes on the electoral stump—

Mr. Twigg: rose—

Mrs. May: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question. Let me tell him that when he knocks on those doors, people will not ask him what the Conservatives propose. They will say "We pay the tax; where are the teachers?"

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems of St. Edward's school in Chipping Campden, in my constituency? For the first time in its 40-year history, the school has advertised a vacancy for a science teacher and has received not a single application. I know that that has happened in London, but if it is starting to extend to areas such as Gloucestershire, what on earth will the problems be in schools that cannot find teachers to teach?

Mrs. May: That shows that when the Government claim that the problem has hit only schools in London, they are plain wrong. The problem is being experienced by schools throughout the country. We wish the teachers and pupils at the school cited by my hon. Friend all the best in overcoming the difficulties that they, like those in so many other schools, are facing.
The crisis is affecting standards. In Essex, head teachers have been forced to use unqualified teachers to plug the gaps—67 in 61 schools throughout the county. In north London, a school has reported that only one in


three maths teachers has maths qualifications—a higher proportion, I suspect, than obtains in the team that produces the Secretary of State's statistics. Throughout the country, head teachers are being forced to use supply teachers to bolster permanent staff.
Back in May 1997, the incoming Labour Government promised that class sizes would be smaller. They should try telling that to the 90 pupils at Bishop Reindorp school in Guildford, who have been put in a single class because of teacher shortage. Now we face the threat of industrial action. Let me make it clear that we do not support such action by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers; teachers and heads should go on trying to work together, as they are all doing, to ensure that children are protected from the worst effects of the crisis. But, as head teachers in Barnet said last month in a letter to parents,
there is only so much extra work that we can ask our staff to do.
Schools have had to shorten hours because of the crisis. Schools have had to send children home for half a day per week, or longer. There is little doubt in the minds of parents that there is a real crisis in our schools, and that it is affecting standards.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I must make some progress.
The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers told the Minister for School Standards today:
Teachers are being asked to teach subjects for which they are not qualified; teachers who would not normally have been first, or even in some cases second, choice are being employed simply because there are not enough applicants for posts. Children are being taught in larger classes and subject areas are being dropped … Children's education is suffering because they are being taught by teachers who are being overstretched, stressed and in some cases not qualified to teach the subject for which they have been employed.
What have the Government done? They have failed to address the key issue for which answer is needed. The problem is not just about recruitment; it is about retaining teachers. Why are teachers leaving in droves? Because of the work load caused by red tape and bureaucracy, and interference in the classroom.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No.
A good example has been provided by Dr. Chris Nicholls, head of Moulsham high school, in Chelmsford, who said in The Times Educational Supplement that the Government's "dictatorial" and "heavy-handed" approach has marred Labour's first term, and that the endless initiatives from the Department for Education and Employment have left teachers feeling demoralised and overburdened.
Dr. Nicholls said that the Government's
approach has simply been too prescriptive and over-the-top …
We don't seem to be able to do anything in schools these days without filling out forms … We are now living in a bureaucratic nightmare.
Even teacher recruitment is tied around with red tape, as demonstrated in the graduate and registered teacher programme. Let us look at an application form for that programme for primary schools. I can understand a requirement to ask for a few pages of details on applicants

and their needs, but how many pages does the application form have? Are there one or two pages? Are there four, five, six or seven pages? Are there nine pages? No; the application runs to 23 pages.
It is no wonder that the director of education at the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead said that one of the major problems with the programme is that "it is over-bureaucratic" and that the application form is
unnecessarily complex and … de-motivating for candidates and for schools.
The director of education suggests—I should like the Secretary of State to take these proposals seriously—that the graduate and registered teacher programme should be changed
to reflect the recruitment difficulties experienced in places other than central London,
and that the
allocations need to reflect the full range of teacher shortages and not focus almost exclusively on secondary shortage subjects.
He also suggests improving the application procedure.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could take up those constructive proposals and change the programme to ensure that it is not so bureaucratic. He could also try to ensure that the changes help schools outside London.
If the Government really want to help resolve the current crisis, why do they not consider relaxing the restrictions now? All along, however, what we have had from the Government are not concrete proposals, but spin and no delivery. The Government's only response has been a new telephone line, a special unit in Whitehall, phoney statistics and a dogged determination to avoid admitting what every teacher across the country knows—that the education system is in crisis.
Teachers need to be left to teach. They need to be freed from the suffocating burden of directives, circulars and guidance that flows daily from the Secretary of State's Department. New teachers who started at the beginning of last year would have received 140 guidance circulars from the Department for Education and Employment by the time that they were six months into the job.
A Conservative Government will stop telling teachers what to do and allow them to do what they do best—teach. We have pledged to match, pound for pound, Labour's spending on schools. However, we shall ensure that that money finds its way to where it is most needed, because too much Government money is being squandered on waste and bureaucracy. By devolving powers and budgets to schools, we shall ensure, on average, an extra £540 per pupil for every school in the country.

Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No.
We need to give head teachers the freedom to use incentives to attract teachers who are right for their schools.
Those measures will go some way to ensuring that teaching is once again made an attractive profession. It is also vital that we ensure that teachers are doing the job that they entered the profession to do—to get on with teaching, and not endlessly fill in the Secretary of State's paperwork.
The Government were elected claiming that things can only get better, but they have got worse. Across the country, too many schools have reached crisis point.

Mr. Derek Twigg: rose—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No. I am coming to the end of my speech, so I shall not give way.
Schools have reached crisis point, with teacher shortages, classes being sent home early, increasing class sizes, unqualified staff, non-specialist staff and standards falling.

Mr. Twigg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May: No, I will not give way.
It is little wonder that people are saying, "We have paid the taxes, so where are the teachers? We have paid the taxes, so where has the money gone? We have paid the taxes, so when will the Government deliver?" This Government will never deliver. Only a Conservative Government will set schools free, let teachers teach and deliver the standards in education that our children deserve.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the enormous strides taken over the last three years to make teaching a more attractive profession; particularly welcomes the introduction of a new career structure and performance-related pay to assist retention, a greater emphasis on continuing professional development and the development of golden hellos in shortage subjects and teacher training salaries, which mean that there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years; further welcomes the practical steps taken by the Government to assist headteachers facing recruitment problems in some areas and the measures which have been taken to reduce needless bureaucracy in schools; applauds the improved achievement levels by both primary and secondary pupils, the big reduction in infant class sizes since 1997 and the substantial increase in teaching assistants and learning mentors to offer practical support to pupils and teachers; and notes that the number of teachers in post is higher than at any time in the last decade as a direct result of greater investment in education by the Government, and that the School Teachers' Review Body will report soon.
The only delivery likely to come from the Conservative party is what was in store when highwaymen of the 18th century said, "Stand and deliver." The people to whom that command was directed found themselves ejected from their carriages and robbed of their money. They certainly did not get anything back.
We need to inject an air of reality into the debate. The first thing that I want to do is thank Ralph Tabberer, the chief executive of the Teacher Training Agency, and the officials of my Department who have been so badly maligned this afternoon by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). They have worked hard over recent weeks and months to ensure that staff are available

in schools and that action is being taken in that regard. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards for her excellent work over recent weeks.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead believes that using the word "crisis" often enough will convince people that a crisis exists. It is certainly possible, by using that word all the time, to change the atmosphere and make it difficult for schools to attract the people that they need and encourage them to apply for jobs. It is also possible by that means to make it difficult to persuade young people that teaching is a good profession to enter, and to make it difficult for returners—people who may be thinking about going back to the profession after taking early retirement, for example—to want to return to teaching.
Repeating the word "crisis" makes all that possible, but it will not resolve the problem. The Government have been clear all along that a problem exists. That is why we took action in 1998 with the golden hellos, about which I shall speak in a moment. That is why we made available £180 million last Match to introduce programmes—such as the graduate teacher programme, to which the hon. Lady referred—aimed at resolving the problem. The Conservative party is not committed to matching the Government's total education spend, but only our spending on schools. A. Conservative Government would not be able to afford to put those programmes in place. The graduate teacher programme, therefore, would not be available under a Conservative Government, as they would not have the money to pay for it.
However, I thank the hon. Lady for the one positive suggestion that her speech contained. There was only one, and it had to do with the graduate teacher programme. There is a need to scrutinise all the forms, and to listen to and respond to anyone who believes that they can be slimmed down and made less bureaucratic. It is important that we spread the graduate teacher programme, and we have doubled, to 1,680, the number of people taking part in it. Those people must be made available across the country.
I accept the hon. Lady's suggestion in that regard, and think that it is sensible. I heard no other suggestion as to what we should do. I am very sorry about that. I came here this afternoon prepared to listen and respond positively to the debate, as I have just done.

Mr. Christopher Chope: With regard to the graduate programme, will the Secretary of State explain why a lady constituent of mine has been refused access to a teacher training course? She has A-levels in English and history, and a second-class honours degree in anthropology. She wishes to teach history at a secondary school. The refusal was based on the claim that she could not guarantee that her degree in anthropology had a 60 per cent. history content. My constituent is eager to get into teaching, but is being prevented from doing so by Government bureaucracy.

Mr. Blunkett: I would not dream of trying to deal this afternoon with every application to an institution or for school-based training. I emphasise that school-based training is available, so the surveys from institutions, to which the hon. Member for Maidenhead referred earlier, do not add up to the total picture.
However, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to a constituency case. I can tell him that what makes the difference is the course content. Leaving her A-levels aside, if her anthropology degree had sufficient history content to enable her to train to teach secondary school specialists, there would be no reason for her not to be accepted.
Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Maidenhead chided the Government because she said there were too many people—and she read from the National Union of Teachers letter—who were being asked to teach subjects that they were not equipped to teach.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not being a little disingenuous here? Is not the reality that the Teacher Training Agency and the training programmes need to be dramatically reviewed? The nonsense of someone going through an undergraduate course, obtaining a degree and then not being considered appropriate to be trained in a specialism is insulting.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for another sensible suggestion. I can confirm that we are reviewing circular 4/98. We believe that common sense should be applied. However, common sense means that people have to have sufficient course content, whatever their degree, or take conversion courses. Let us agree that common sense is common sense. If we can get people with the expertise and the background to do the job in specialist subject areas, we should—it is in everyone's best interests.
One instance was raised in the press recently. Someone took a psychology degree but did not indicate in the form that she filled in to apply for a maths course that she had undertaken sufficient course content in statistics and maths. It was not surprising that the institution did not know that that was the case.

Mrs. May: On the maths content of courses for those who wish to undertake teacher training, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the availability of maths courses? I have had a case of a lady with a first-class degree in English who was told that she needed to improve her maths to go into teaching and then found it difficult to get a suitable course that would provide that training for her.

Mr. Blunkett: We will examine the position immediately on this and any other instances that right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise. However, we introduced the tests for maths, English and information technology to ensure that whoever people are, whatever degree they have taken and whatever course they have been on, they are equipped to do the job in the classroom. Quality first, second and third has to be the hallmark of where we are going in order to continue what the chief inspector of schools identified last year, and what I hope will be identified and continued by the new chief inspector in his annual report in February—that the quality of teaching and of teachers has risen substantially over the past four or five years.

Mr. Derek Twigg: The hon. Member for Maidenhead advised me earlier what my constituents would be saying to me about education at the election. However, I see my constituents on a regular basis between elections, and they tell me that they see a rise in quality and standards.

As my right hon. Friend mentioned, we have seen an increase in standards in key stage 2—they are double what they were in my constituency in 1997. My constituency has three new classrooms and a new school. That is the sort of quality that teachers want, and that is what the Government are delivering. Will my right hon. Friend agree with me on that point?

Mr. Blunkett: How could I possibly disagree with that? It is a consequence of improved teaching and teachers in the classroom, and I thank them for it. Ultimately, the correlation between improved standards, increased levels of test results and qualification at GCSE and A-level is a result of the improvement in teachers and in the teaching in the classroom. The two go together. Paradoxically, some people are glad to have an improvement and want to reward teachers for it while others find it difficult to believe that improved teaching leads to improved exam results. They suggest that the results must somehow be fiddled, that statisticians do not have the qualifications to do the job accurately and that independent statisticians cannot be trusted. A party that says that about those who are delivering the nationally assessed and independent statistical data is not fit to be in government.

Mr. Hilary Benn: As my right hon. Friend refers to the position 10 years ago, will he confirm to the House that the teacher vacancy rate in 1991 was approximately double the present rate? As someone who, as a chair of education, was dealing with a recruitment crisis for teachers in inner London just before that time, I do not recollect that any practical assistance whatever was offered by the then Conservative Government to help us to deal with that problem.

Mr. Blunkett: I confirm that the number of vacancies in 1991—when, as my hon. Friend will remember, we were in the throes of the recession that followed the 1988–89 boom—was 5,500. I mention the boom and the consequent recession because at the time there was a dual problem in recruitment. With the artificially created boom in 1988, London and the south-east experienced the most enormous rise in house prices—as anyone who was around at the time will remember. We continue to feel the effects of that. However, cuts in teacher training took place throughout almost all the 1980s—especially in secondary teacher recruitment and training.
It was precisely at that time that we needed expansion, however. That is why there are fewer teachers in their 30s and early 40s at present than there would otherwise have been—a point to which the attention of the House has been drawn previously—and we should not have the current gap, which I acknowledge, between new entrants and the over-45s.
In the economy at present, 1.1 million more men and women are in work than four years ago. There is low inflation and continuing growth—with prosperity leading both to demand on housing in areas of high employment and, of course, to demand for labour and thus competition for the attention and recruitment of young people. That is a simple fact.
If we were not expanding the teaching profession, the problem would not be so great. Increased investment in education leads to increased demand for teachers—as does the reduction of class sizes. That increased demand


for teachers leads to pressure on recruitment—especially in schools in London and the south-east, but also in other parts of the country.
There is thus an economic factor. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has pointed out, the last thing we want is to be able to recruit in a recession, but to be unable to match the expansion in resource investment with an expansion in the teaching profession.
That is the position we face. In England alone, an extra 7,000 plus teachers have been in the classroom—in post—since 1998. We know that there is a major problem, but we also know that simply to repeat the word "crisis" will do nothing to resolve it. We have endeavoured to take steps to make it possible to change the position.
We introduced the golden hello scheme, first, for specialist subject areas, and reversed the decline in recruitment for teachers of maths, languages and science—although problems remain. As long as we are recruiting almost 50 per cent. of all maths graduates for teaching, there will continue to be a major challenge.
We extended the scheme with the new graduate salaries—£6,000 for nine months' training—and added the golden hello of £4,000 for those who actually take up teaching. We introduced the graduate teacher programme under which we are prepared to pay people £13,000 for undertaking that work-based route. We are extending the school-based, initial teacher training programme that many people are convinced will offer a way forward in the future.
We shall not stern the problem, however, unless we persuade both mature students and new entrants that teaching is a first-class profession. As I pointed out to one union leader two days ago, it must be in the interests of the teacher unions—competing in the run-up to the school teachers' review body—to sell to the world out there that teaching is a good job to be in. If they do not, the pressure on their members will increase, not decrease, because the more we can recruit, the more easily we can lift the burden from existing teachers. They will not have to cover if the cover is there. They will not have to cover if sickness absence does not increase. It is in everyone's interests to get this right, which is why we need ideas.
On 27 December, we introduced an advertising campaign. Admittedly, it has not yet transferred interest into applications, because it takes weeks for people to submit applications and for those to be processed. That is why I was right in saying, at Education questions this time last week, that comparing one date with a different date in the previous year would lead to a misunderstanding about the level of applications. It did, because applications, as attested to by the graduate teacher training registry this week, are 10 per cent. up on this time last year.

Mrs. May: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, but I will give hon. Members another statistic first. If the advertising campaign continues to be as initially successful as we hope that it will be, there will be a substantial uplift on that figure, because I can confirm to the House that, as of last

Tuesday, 100,000 inquiries have been made for teacher training, which is 61,000 more than this time last year. That is something to rejoice in.

Mrs. May: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had reversed the decline in applications from maths graduates to enter the teaching profession. Will he accept that the Graduate Teacher Training Registry figures that he quoted, which were published last week, show that there is a continuing fall in the number of applications from maths graduates?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I confirm that there was a 2 per cent. fall by comparison with last year, but it was the most enormous reverse of the position that we inherited, and which continued in the, first two years of our Government, in which applications from maths graduates were almost in free fall. That is why, far from sitting on our hands, we introduced golden hellos. We moved rapidly because the fall in applications from maths graduates had become so grave. So we have taken steps—

Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I must make progress, because the debate finishes at 4 o'clock and I want us to make as much progress as we can.
So where do we go from here? We have got inquiries up enormously. We have got applications up. We have got an improvement of 9 per cent.—over 2,000—in those in training now, compared with this time last year. The position is improving but is still a worry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards recently introduced further measures to bring back former teachers to the profession, by providing free courses and making it possible for those who undertake them to be paid for doing so. We have put in place resources for the most disadvantaged schools, to enable them to pay recruitment and retention bonuses. We have submitted evidence to the school teachers' pay review body, which will present its findings in two or three weeks' time.
I believe that the combination of measures already taken and the work that the Department, the Teacher Training Agency and local authorities have done is yielding fruit. The local authorities have recruitment managers paid for by the Department. That money would not be there if there were not a standards fund and a central budget specifically for these matters. Those local authorities would not exist if Conservative Members had their way, so God knows what they suppose that schools would do if they were in real difficulties and needed to call on immediate help and support locally.
We are also working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and local authorities on housing, as has been spelled out many times. The efforts of councils such as Reading to pay sums of money to those who are prepared to provide rented accommodation to teachers from other parts of the country who are looking for jobs in the area should be applauded—not maligned, as they have been in some parts of the press. That is precisely the sort of thing that would make sense in a sensible world.
Taken together, there are more resources to employ more teachers; more inquiries from teachers; more people recruited to courses; and more people being placed in jobs, but, yes, there is enormous pressure in an economy with a buoyant labour market, so it is vital that we make teaching attractive. That is why we have taken steps, through performance-related pay, to increase enormously the future salary and promotion levels of teachers and to reduce bureaucracy and administration.
About two fifths fewer documents were sent to primary schools last term, compared with a year earlier, and 66 per cent. fewer to secondary schools. Slightly more were sent to primary schools than secondary schools, because 216 of the 490 pages sent to primary schools last term dealt with the grammar guide. I mention the grammar guide only because spelling, grammar and phonics are close to our hearts—at least, to some of us.
When I read in the papers, as I did this morning, that the so-called Campaign for Real Education says that literacy programmes are not working, but the Opposition tell us that we are imposing too many specific requirements on teachers, I wonder when the right in this country will get its act together. The contradictions are so stark now. With one breath, those on the right say that teachers should teach phonics more rigorously and that they should teach spelling as dictated from the centre; with the next breath, they say that teachers should be left alone to teach as they will.
The zealots want to dictate precisely how phonics should be taught in every classroom, but the free-for-all view—not to let teachers teach because of course they should be left to do so—suggests that the Government should not instil any teaching methodology and, presumably, that the grammar guide should not have been issued because it represents bureaucracy. Between those two extremes lies common sense.
Common sense suggests that we spread the best practice to every school and that we support teachers and enable them to do the job well. When their confidence and self-esteem are lifted, as results improve and children flourish, so will recruitment to the teaching profession, as will the quality of opportunity because standards in every classroom will be of the best.

Mr. Phil Willis: May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team, and to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who leads the Conservative party's education team, for having to leave the debate early to travel to another engagement? I have given those on both Front Benches notice of that fact.
I do not want to begin with empty words of thanks and congratulation to the teaching profession. Few hon. Members who have spent their lifetime in education, especially working in the more difficult areas of Leeds and Middlesbrough, fail to appreciate the value not only of education but of what our teachers provide young people with. It is immensely sad that, every time we debate education, we talk about all that is wrong with education and the education service, rather than celebrating the achievements.
It was interesting that, despite all the difficulties—I shall return to them because they should not be glossed over—an analysis and poll in The Times Educational

Supplement showed that two out of three teachers still enjoy their jobs. We should celebrate and build on that, rather than merely talking about the problems. Although the hon. Member for Maidenhead makes some telling points, she fails to recognise that teacher recruitment has been a problem since 1983. With the exception of the period between 1991 and 1994, when there was a recession, the targets set by previous Governments since 1983 were missed. Indeed, the maths targets between 1994 and 1997 were missed on average by nearly 25 per cent. We have to take that into account and say, "A plague on both your houses", because no one has been able to master how to recruit teachers in a buoyant economy. We cannot simply ignore that problem.
I want to raise many issues with the hon. Member for Maidenhead, but I am principally concerned about her remarks that quality is being damaged. I reject that statement. I accept that there is enormous pressure and children in some schools do not have teachers, but in the 1980s, I worked a four-day week virtually every week because of union action. So it is not new for heads and schools to be working in such a way. Of course it is not good for kids not to have a teacher in front of them, but I reject what the hon. Lady said about quality.

Mr. John Hayes: Drawing on the hon. Gentleman's expertise, which I recognise, will he comment on the implications of a large number of supply teachers working in a school in succession? I am not being negative about such teachers, many of whom are very good, but does he not agree that a rapid turnover of staff, or the use of non-specialist teachers to teach subjects with which they are not completely familiar, is bound, even with the greatest effort in the world, to have an impact on standards and quality?

Mr. Willis: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is not my point. I am saying that what has happened over the past three or four years is not new; it has been happening for the past two decades. When a school does not have a regular supply of teachers whom the youngsters know and respect and who are able to lift their morale and self-esteem, that will, of course, affect the product. However, the idea that that has happened in schools only since this Government came to office is nonsense.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willis: In a moment.
Let us consider the results of the standard assessment tests at key stage 2, which were introduced by the previous Government to measure student performance. Between 1996 and last year, passes in English increased from 57 per cent. to 75 per cent, in maths from 54 per cent. to 72 per cent and in science from 62 per cent. to 85 per cent. Is that a fall in standards? Those figures reflect the reality of what has happened in our primary schools, and we should celebrate it. GCSE results over the same period have increased from 44.5 per cent. to 49 per cent. That is not because exams have got easier, but because our youngsters and teaching are getting better; and that is not lower, but higher quality.
The real problem lies at level 3, which causes most concern in this country. The previous Government constantly and desperately ignored that problem after their revolution in education in 1992–93 and the incorporation of further education colleges, but 40 per cent. of our students are now achieving level 3, which is a remarkable state of affairs.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman's peroration went on to make the point that I wanted to raise.
My constituency of Slough provides a typical example of the improvement in standards that the hon. Gentleman describes. It has the most improved urban education authority in the country and standards for achievement at GCSE level have exceeded the national average for the first time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that has been achieved at a time when the town has had difficulties in recruiting qualified teachers? Does he also agree that it is an example of how well and how hard our teachers have worked during that time? They and the children should be congratulated. If we can do that well at a time of recruitment difficulties—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order.

Mr. Willis: I have got the point of the hon. Lady's peroration. I take every opportunity that I can to praise the teaching force across the country. Of course, there are examples of bad teaching and there are poor teachers, but teachers make up a work force of whom we should be proud. I send my hearty congratulations to the teachers in Slough on their efforts.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I agree entirely that good teaching contributes to raising standards. When teachers and children work well together, the best results are achieved. Although I agree that the majority of teachers are dedicated, committed, love their jobs and love children to succeed, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that leadership in schools is also vital? We must not overlook a growing concern. Many school governors now receive very few applicants from whom they can choose to provide the future leadership in their schools.

Mr. Willis: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The public sector is no different from the private sector and leadership, wherever it occurs, is the absolute key to improving the standards of a teaching force. If there is one thing that I would take the Government to task for it is that over the past decade—and not just since 1997—head teachers, in particular, have been taken away from their core business to do other tasks at the periphery of leading a dynamic team in a school. That is sad. One of the sad aspects of the Tories' proposals for free schools is that managers would do even more bureaucratic work instead of leading their school communities.
In his latest report, Lord Woodhead of Smith Square said that 90 per cent. of schools had a higher proportion of good teaching than when they were previously inspected and that 70 per cent. of them had significantly improved their exam performance. I rest my case. Standards are not dropping as a result of the problems that

schools face. We must recognise that teachers are making heroic efforts to maintain standards in very difficult circumstances.
One would expect a Labour Government who promised "education, education, education" to reward teachers for the efforts that they are making and their performance. Have they received better rewards and better conditions of services? The Times Educational Supplement said last week that 80 per cent of teachers said that their job was more stressful under tiffs Government than it was before. I find that hard to believe—I was incredibly stressed out by 1997. The survey found that 91 per cent. said that Government had failed to raise the status of teachers. Raising their status is crucial if we want to retain them. There is nothing worse for those who go to the pub on Friday night—I do not, because I do not drink—than to have people poke fun at them because they are teachers.

Mr. Hayes: They laugh at the hon. Gentleman because he is a Liberal.

Mr. Willis: I shall ignore the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention. It is important that we raise teachers' status.
One in 10 teachers questioned in the survey said that they had been assaulted, and that is a worrying statistic that must be tackled Some 85 per cent. said that they were increasingly pressurised as a result of their job since 1997. Have the rewards increased because of the extra pressure, the extra work and teachers' extra productivity?
The Government say that 190,000 teachers will receive £2,000 more as a result of threshold payments. I welcome the extra money for teachers, but only 190,000 out of 500,000 will get it. The majority of the others will have only a 3.5 per cent. pay rise this year—40p a day for a cup of coffee is what most teachers will receive for all the efforts that they have put in. I defy the Minister to come to the ballot box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dispatch Box."] I am sorry; I have got elections on the mind. I defy the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to say that such a pay rise is sufficient reward for the efforts that teachers have put in.
Turning now to head teachers—I declare an interest, in that I was a head—the Government are telling them that they do not trust their judgment on threshold assessments, so an external assessor must come to the school and if he does not agree with that judgment, he will make a decision over their head. Does that give head teachers the impression that we value them and their judgment? I urge the Minister to reconsider the issue of external assessors and to get rid of them, because they are an expensive nonsense. The Government should pay Cambridge Education Associates a small sum to go away and allow head teachers to get on with their job.

Mrs. May: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the Government's characteristics, which they display in their interference in the classroom, in their second-guessing of head teachers' judgment through external assessors, and in many other examples, is their complete and utter failure to trust teachers?

Mr. Willis: I certainly feel that there is a great desire to control everything in education from the centre, except in higher education, and that is a genuine failing on the


part of the Government. If we have another Labour Government after 3 May, they must allow professionalism to triumph in education; otherwise we will simply have a technician service, and I do not think that anybody in the House wants that.
A person in my office calculated that a Railtrack employee would have received a bonus of about £6,500 for working over the Christmas period. It would take teachers, with their 3.5 per cent. pay rise, 10 years to make up that difference. That gives a sense of the imbalance in the rewards of teachers and others.
The McCrone report in Scotland was the equivalent of our Green Paper. We must remember that the Scottish Parliament has existed for a relatively short time, yet that report recognised that education was crucial and said that the Parliament wanted to back teachers to the hilt. Not only did it produce its own version of the Green Paper, but it set up partnership discussions with political parties, the Executive, local authorities and trade unions to hammer out an agreement for the future.
We must compare that with the way in which this Government dealt with their Green Paper. We never had a debate in the House about the Green Paper, about performance-related pay or about threshold assessments. The Government forced that policy through; they even forced it through the courts to mike sure that it was implemented exactly as they wanted. That, too, is a massive failure.
The Scottish Executive have promised teachers a 21.5 per cent. pay increase over three years, giving certainty to schools and the profession. They have promised 4,000 more teachers to reduce class sizes throughout the education system, improved conditions of service, recognition of increased demands and a statutory right to support for professional development. None of those has been introduced by this Government under the policy of education, education, education, yet they are crucial to the teaching profession and for raising standards.
On threshold payments, the Minister is famous for saying to teachers, "We want something for something." I admire her enormously for the effort and energy that she puts into her brief, but telling teachers, after all that they have delivered, "You have to do more to get your threshold payments," sends out entirely the wrong message.
In Scotland, there is no performance-related pay, no payment by results and no bureaucratic threshold. There are no external assessors checking on head teachers and there is no denial of employment rights for part-time staff and those belonging to trade unions. What a difference devolution has made. What a contrast there is in Scotland now that Liberal Democrats are in government. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister would like that.
If we are to make a real impact on teacher shortages, the Government must recognise that they must have a new approach, and that pay and conditions of service matter. I do not accuse either the Secretary of State or the Minister of not wanting to improve standards or not wanting to support young people. I think that they do, but I believe that they have got a great deal wrong.
The Minister is right to say that bureaucracy is not only about paperwork. Most of the bureaucracy has come about through initiatives. My argument with the Minister is that we are having too many initiatives. If we want to reduce

bureaucracy, we need to reduce significantly the number of initiatives and stop forcing schools to do things that they do not want to do.
Ofsted says that there is a problem at key stage 3. It has produced evidence that shows that there is some difficulty, especially with year seven, and a dip in performance. What do the Government do? Every school has to respond to a key stage 3 initiative, even though the Ofsted report has praised a school for its key stage 3 work. It might be poor in information and communications technology or in languages, but it has to have an incentive in respect of key stage 3.
Liberal Democrat Members have supported the idea of specialist schools. I have always supported the idea that every school in the land should be noted for a specialism. It is absurd that when the 30 per cent. quota with the local education authority is reached, it is not possible to have any more specialist schools. Surely they are either a good thing or a bad thing. Either they are worth having, or they are not. The Minister is right to say that they have shown improved examination results and less truancy. That being so, we should try to extend them to cover every school.
When the Minister replies, I ask her to explain why we are not recognising community schools in London and in our other large cities as specialist schools. These are schools that offer a range of provision that embeds itself in the community. Why is that not a specialism? Why are we not having ethnic language specialist schools? Why are European languages the only yardstick for language schools? That is insulting in areas such as Bradford, for example, where there is a huge ethnic minority population. We should cherish and celebrate the languages of that minority.
In rural areas, there is often only one school. Why cannot it be a specialist rural school so that it is celebrated in that way? We must consider other ways in which we can support schools.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman talks about specialist schools. Will he bring it to the Government's attention that the 30 per cent. ceiling applies regardless of the specialism of the schools in a particular area? It is nonsensical that, regardless of particular existing specialisms, a technology college, for example, can be prevented from acquiring the status that it deserves and demands.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that the Minister was listening. We have completed some research which reveals that schools with specialist status are predominantly in middle-class areas. They are not in the—

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to point out, in addition to his response to the question of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), that the Conservative Government were responsible for the worst form of restriction. They restricted specialist schools to grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Willis: The Minister has taken the words out of my mouth. I was about to make that riposte, but I was trying to be generous to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman need not be.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is always courteous in the House, and he deserves a courteous response.
If we are to have specialist schools and to develop that approach as a central theme, we must remove absurd restrictions and ensure that all schools can bid appropriately.
The Prime Minister said that he wants the best of our state schools to be as good as the best public schools. Hear, hear—I want that, too. What is the great difference, however? Let us take away class sizes and facilities. The great difference is that our public schools allow the heads and their staffs to define the priorities for the youngsters in their school and to move ahead. We want to see a level of professionalism that is missing at present.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead should not get excited and think that I am supporting her free schools initiative. To be fair, she did not go on too much about free schools this afternoon, having had her nose bloodied at the north of England conference.
We are proposing to cut bureaucracy and set schools free. Imagine what bureaucracy would result from 24,000 separate schools competing with each other. What would that do for recruitment and retention? How would that help to resolve the crisis in teacher recruitment?

Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that he wants the state school system to emulate the successes of the public or independent school system. How does he think the independent schools cope so well in a competitive environment?

Mr. Willis: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would answer the question, but he has posed another question. I am delighted. If the school in which I worked in Leeds, John Smeaton community high school, had £7,500 per student instead of £1,700 per student, I could have offered a better product than I did.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He is contradicting himself. Only a few moments ago, he said that a school's success was nothing to do with its resources—it was about freedom from bureaucracy and the ability of the head and the teachers to run their own school.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice, which is unusual for him. He is quite a courteous person, when he is not speaking about grammar schools. Hansard will demonstrate that I said that I wanted to strip those things out. They are the obvious differences between state and public schools. Freedom, professionalism and trust are extremely important.
Imagine the chaos if every rural primary school and every small secondary school had to close, as they would under the Conservative proposals. Let us be honest about that. If there were equity of funding on a per capita basis from the centre across the whole country, every small primary school that is currently subsidised by the local authority under the formula system would close. We hear no answer to that.
Imagine saying to a group of head teachers in front of one of those big posters, "We are campaigning against bureaucracy, but by the way, you will now have to organise your own admissions, your own appeals, your

own SEN tribunals, your own statementing processes, your own psychology, speech therapy and sensory impairment services, and so on. That will not increase your bureaucracy, but you will have to organise it. Also, you will have to sort out your own buses and taxis, your governors' support, your legal services, your payroll and every other service. Don't ask LEAs for any support, as we are abolishing those."
That is the nonsense implied by the Tories' proposals. I challenge any hon. Member to stand in front of one of the posters and quote that. That is where the £540 comes in. It is not £540 on top of what the Government are promising, or what we are promising. It is £540 taken away, to be given back to schools for those bureaucratic services. That is nonsense, and it will do nothing to alleviate teacher shortages.
May I offer the Minister some suggestions for dealing with the current crisis? The state of teacher recruitment and retention is well known, so I shall not dwell on it. Rather than go into battle with the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the National Union of Teachers and the other teacher unions, the Government should set up a taskforce to see what immediate steps could be taken to sort out the crisis.
What about short-term contracts with pension protection for recently retired teachers? A significant number of people are leaving the profession and short-term contracts with pension protection would help. What about DFEE contracts with supply agencies to take supply teachers off their books and give them short-term contracts within schools? What about funding LEAs directly to work with DFEE recruitment managers to provide a pool within their authorities? What about using LEA advisers to teach in some schools? What about offering short-term experience contracts to Ofsted inspectors? What better opportunity could there be than to have a port in the Ofsted inspection system and get all the Ofsted inspectors to do some real work in the schools? What a popular move that would be. Moreover, we should abandon the external threshold assessors and ask them, rather than wandering about, to go into schools and teach. We need long-term solutions.
The Secretary of State was not being entirely honest—honest is not the right word though, because I would not accuse him of being dishonest. But he was certainly manipulating the truth when he talked about the GTTR figures last week. [Interruption.] I have already used the word disingenuous. The hon. Member for Maidenhead also alluded to this point. On 3 January we had the GTTR's figures. A GTTR board decision was taken in October last year to produce figures only in the first week of every month so that there can be no political manipulation or misinterpretation. The hon. Lady and I, and the Minister, went to Bridlington in the first week in January, sunny as it was, and in a debate we openly used those figures showing a 16 per cent. drop in applications.
The Secretary of State did not like that. Suddenly, the chief executive of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service produced an ad hoc set of figures at his own discretion for the Secretary of State to use in today's debate. That is utterly unacceptable. The hon. Member for Maidenhead did not have an advance copy of those figures, and nor did I. The Secretary of State received them in a press release that was embargoed until midnight. That is not open government. UCAS is an


independent organisation which should be providing information to all on a fair basis, but there has been some manipulation. The Minister should respond to that point.
The press release from the Minister and the chief executive of UCAS did not show that, while there was a drop in virtually all the major traditional national curriculum subjects, since the Conservative Government left office there has been a 35 per cent. fall in applications across all subjects. That is how dire the situation is, and that is why it is rightly said that there is a crisis.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has promised to revisit the issue of inappropriate degrees and to try to clear a path through that. It is important that we recognise that degree status entitles one not simply to an understanding of particular subject knowledge, but to a range of skills and applications. Teacher training should enable people to consider how to use skills and knowledge and move into other areas.
In The Times Educational Supplement last Friday there were 236 maths vacancies. The problem cannot be resolved simply by saying that we need to recruit more maths graduates. It is madness to say that a teacher can come from New Zealand with no national curriculum training to teach in our schools, but someone with a sociology degree cannot be trained to be a maths teacher.
We must attract more graduates to teaching. In reply to a question last week, the Minister said that the Liberal Democrat proposal for a 100 per cent. training salary could not be afforded. If £6,000 results in 100,000 responses to the telephone advertising campaign, how many more would come forward if there was a proper 100 per cent. salary training for people coming into teaching? Rather than dismiss that, I hope that the Minister will support it.
We want to offer solutions. We want to work with the Government and the Opposition to find solutions to some difficult problems. Teachers are at the heart of an education system. If we have good teachers, well paid and well valued, every child in Britain will matter, not just the few whom the Conservative party would like to support, or those whom the Government are trying to support.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Usually, 90 per cent. of what he says is good stuff, but the remaining 10 per cent. I ignore. It is like the Liberal Democrats' rather poor amendment. The hon. Gentleman's speech was much better. However, it cannot be right that, at 2.56 pm, in a short debate, with another two Front-Bench speeches to be delivered, Back-Bench speakers will have only about half an hour. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 33 minutes and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke for more than half an hour. Mercifully, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was quite short in comparison. It is not good for democracy or for Parliament for Back Benchers to have so little time. [Interruption.] Plenty of Liberal Democrat and Labour Members are present.
Today's debate is exactly the same as one we had a couple of months ago, and no doubt we shall have another in a couple of months' time when the official Opposition again try to prove that there is a crisis by constantly repeating that fact. As Chairman of the Select Committee

on Education and Employment, I am trying to be reasonably objective, but as far as I can see only a few schools have a real problem. For a few days a few schools introduced a four-day week, but with help from their LEA and the Department, the problems were quickly solved.
Let me put the problem in perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) cogently made the point that the teacher shortages 10 years ago posed a far greater problem. However, this is a debate about recruiting teachers. The Nuffield Foundation document "Attracting Teachers", the result of research by Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson, makes some good suggestions. We must consider teacher recruitment across the board.
I have previously spoken about the nature of the economy. We are at the top of the economic cycle. We have real competition and we are losing many women who, 15 or 20 years ago, would have gone into teaching. A diverse and interesting range of jobs is now open to them. Many of them still go into teaching, but a woman can do anything now. In the old days, a woman was either a secretary, a teacher or a nurse. Speaking as a man with a son and three daughters, I am glad that girls leaving school can now do anything that they like, and they do. That is magnificent, but it has implications for the teaching profession.
The problem is about pay, status, respect and conditions of employment. I was looking at the Green Paper, which is now a couple of years old, in which there are some good ideas about school design. When I go to schools, I see the need for simple things like space in which to work—a desk and shelf of one's own or somewhere to put one's personal belongings, computer and so on. That is very important. We were promised that there would be all sorts of innovations, and Lord Puttnam, I think, was going to design the staff room of the future. However, I have not heard much about that recently, and I still go to dreary staff rooms, with a few rather worn armchairs clustered round the sides of what obviously used to be a store cupboard or perhaps an old classroom.
The Green Paper and the Nuffield research also deal with the private sector. I am not someone who says that we cannot learn lessons from the private sector. Of course we can. Twice as much money is spent on pupils in private education, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reminded the Opposition Front Bench, and one can do a lot more with twice as much funding. Not only did I read about private schools, but I asked a recently retired distinguished head what were the problems in the private sector. Even with the ability to pay more, the private sector is finding it difficult to recruit science and maths graduates as teachers. I was told so by someone who was recently running a large public school.
We need to address problems with accommodation, status and so on. However, in a debate such as ours, we should also discuss the way in which people in an educational partnership can help. Parents, it is true, often do not really respect teachers, even in the private sector, as one learns from talking to people in that sector. The retired head teacher told me, "They really think of us as servants, you know. Quite good quality servants, but not up to their standards."
We must address the real problem that exists in this country and bring parents into the educational process much more as partners. We made a clear statement on that


in the Select Committee report on early years, which we published only last week. Parents should be partners. If they are valued as partners, they will value and respect teachers. We must learn from that and develop respect on both sides. There is therefore much to work on regarding parents.
That partnership approach includes the trade unions. It is perhaps unfashionable for Labour Members to say that we should expect much more thoughtful comment, leadership and wisdom from the trade union leadership in the teaching profession. I mix with teachers' union leaders a great deal and have introduced an innovation whereby they are all are invited to talk to the Select Committee about how they see the future of education. We are trying to treat them as full partners.
The other evening, I was at a prizegiving at the Queen Elizabeth school in Wimborne, Dorset. When one talks to teachers, one sees that they do not have half the prejudices that one reads about, even in the polls in The Times Educational Supplement. Incidentally, some rather good things were said about the Government in the TES survey. The hon. Member for Maidenhead did not mention one aspect of that survey, which covers not just political issues, but how teachers feel about life.
However, the teachers in Wimborne told me, in confidence, that they were worried when they heard the trade union leadership being strident. The strident tone of the teaching unions does not do the partnership much good. Their comments on the day when the chief inspector of Ofsted retired are an example of that. Everyone has his or her own ideas about the former incumbent, but I must tell the House that the comments of the trade unions annoyed a lot of people. They were crass and inappropriate, not as a judgment but as a way of speaking. It does teachers no good when trade union leaders speak in those terms, or when people hear at Easter conferences only the most extreme and discordant voices. Union leaders must therefore take their responsibilities more seriously.
I also want to mention the press. Many people switch on the "Today" programme and a lot of them like John Humphrys. I think that John Humphrys personally is quite a nice man. However, he represents the strident school that thinks that everything is a crisis. To him, a few teachers on a four-day week at one school is a national crisis. "Today" is important because it sets the tone for the rest of the day and, often, for the rest of the week. However, if one goes back to the original story, one can see that it does no one any good always to treat everything that happens in education as a major crisis.

Mr. Hayes: It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman, especially in the light of his role, to dismiss the crisis as one school that was once on a four-day week. There is a genuine problem, which the Secretary of State has acknowledged. The Liberal Democrat spokesman has acknowledged a severe problem. Schools throughout the country are affected and, if I may, I shall give one example.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It has already been pointed out how little time is left. Interventions should be very brief. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance. Nearly all our debate has been Opposition

Members making speeches and interventions. I am trying to correct—and, given my role, I believe that I have every right to do so—the balance of the comments of the Opposition spokesperson on education. I wish to balance what she described as a national crisis, in which schools would fall to pieces tomorrow, with the fact that that is a relatively minor problem. I accept that it is serious problem, but I am trying to put it in perspective.
In conclusion, I was trying to talk about the partnership that makes education work. It is a partnership in which the media have responsibilities. I picked out the "Today" programme but, generally, we have a very good and highly responsible educational press in this country. It joins the argument and, more often than not, raises the level of debate and discussion. However, even when the broadsheets get into the education field, too often we see a different aspect.
I have to say at least one uncomfortable thing to my own Front Bench, just to balance the fact that I have been rather kind on the question of whether or not this is a crisis. Some of us who represent English constituencies will increasingly question the ability and resources of three parts of the United Kingdom but especially one in the news at the moment—Scotland. We shall ask how Scotland can spend a great deal more money on education than England apparently can. I have the figures from the Library. Per capita, £814 a year is spent on education in Scotland. In England, that figure is £636; in Northern Ireland, it is £896; and in Wales, it is £645. Thus England is at the bottom.
Many of us who remember the original balance of resources that flowed from the Exchequer to different parts of the United Kingdom question very much the generosity of the Barnett formula, which gives Scotland the ability and resources to afford that sort of expenditure per head. English Members of Parliament—including some on the Front Bench, I am told—will increasingly question the Barnett formula and the flow of resources to Scotland, compared with the flow of resources to other parts of England.
If one speaks to people in the private sector and reads the Nuffield report, one sees that teachers like working in the private sector because more emphasis is placed there on the ability to teach than on keeping discipline. No Opposition Member commented on the disgraceful intervention made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who said that the role of teachers in most state schools was to provide crowd control. That is a gross travesty. We should consider the damage that one such Back-Bench remark can do when it is reported in the press and teachers read it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not know the hon. Member for Buckingham as well as Labour Members; we understand exactly where he is coming from. It is damaging that an hon. Member can make such comments with no reprimand.
I want to provide some balance. Of course there is a problem with discipline in some schools and we must get to the roots of it. In my first education speech in the House, I suggested that it was about time that we gave kids with less academic ability something constructive to do. The number of experiments on getting kids into more work-related activities—such experiments have so far been conducted in 21 schools, where they apply to children at the age of 14—should be increased. Furthermore, we still underrate the value of information technology training for that sector of pupils. The standard


of information training in Britain is still well below that in many of our European competitor countries. I want this country to become the information and learning society of Europe and to be determined to use every resource to be the most successful country in achieving that.
My experience in schools suggests that giving less academically able children the opportunity to gain IT skills early on allows them to contribute, makes them feel valued and gives them self esteem Research also shows that that is the case. I hope that the Government listen to that message, as such opportunities make life in the classroom so much easier and better. Where they are available, the whole school will benefit from all the children feeling valued and having value.

Mr. John Randall: I shall endeavour to be brief, although I should like to raise many issues.
My family has a certain tradition of teaching that stretches back to my grandmother, who taught classes of more than 100 pupils in Kennington at the turn of the last century. My grandfather was a peripatetic woodwork teacher in the West Drayton area, where I now live, and my aunt was a senior lecturer in education at Goldsmith's college.
I even married an English teacher and a special needs teacher—I refer to one person only Indeed, I have spent much of my time in the company of people from the educational world. One of the messages that I receive most clearly from such people is that the less politicians and politics are involved in education, the better. Obviously, hon. Members of all parties are well-meaning, but teachers are sick and tired of political interference.
I pay tribute to teaching staff and to members of the local education authority in Hillingdon. I do not have time to mention all the achievements of my local schools, but I should like briefly to refer to Mr. Robert Preston, the headmaster of Abbotsfield school. He has managed to get his school out of special measures, but my reason for mentioning him is to give the Department for Education and Employment a gentle reminder that he is still waiting for replies to two letters. The first was sent in September and the follow-up in October. Doing the courtesy of providing an early reply would be a good way of giving a pat on the back to somebody who has done a good job.
The debate is timely for me, as the director of education in Hillingdon, Mr. Philip O'Hear, convened a meeting last Friday of the three Members who represent the Hillingdon area, along with heads of primary and secondary schools and local education authority representatives. As a former head teacher, he has brought a great deal of expertise to the LEA. Although he and I might not agree on everything, I recognise that he has been doing his very best.
I should like to outline some of Hillingdon's current problems, a great many of which relate to staff shortages. In one primary school, 60 per cent. of teaching posts are filled by temporary appointments. There is a significant turnover of younger teachers. Almost 30 per cent, of teaching staff in Hillingdon are under 30. That is yet another problem, in addition to the pressures on the London area and all the other problems that teachers face.
One of the most disturbing concerns in Hillingdon is that many of the vacancies are arising because teachers are moving to another LEA area. In particular, we are

suffering because neighbouring LEAs such as Brent benefit from the excellence in cities scheme—indeed, I think that that applies also to Harrow and Slough. That has put our LEA in competition with those of neighbouring areas, and it is at a great disadvantage in terms of incentives and support.
Furthermore, I do not think that some of the areas of deprivation in the borough are adequately recognised. I refer especially to Yiewsley, West Drayton, and Hayes and Harlington, but other pockets also exist. We have written to the Department about those concerns and I urge it to consider the problem seriously, as we are losing out.
As time is short, I shall read out some of the comments of heads who attended the meeting. I shall not name them, as it would be invidious to do so, but I am sure that they would stand by their words if a Minister were to visit the area. I know that the Minister for School Standards has already made such a visit, but bearing in mind the current situation, perhaps it would be appropriate for her to do so again. The area is not terribly far away, and Ministers are always welcome—we are a friendly lot down in Uxbridge.
One head told the meeting that he laughed out loud when he heard the Secretary of State saying that there was no crisis. I appreciate that we must be careful not to give a dog a bad name, but I think that the teaching staff recognise that a crisis exists and they want it to be acknowledged as such. Other teachers at the meeting said that
standards are seriously at risk;
that
senior management are just firefighting;
and that
the situation is only getting worse.
One head was worried that
people are being appointed who would not normally have been appointed.
It was said that one school would take anybody who could walk and talk at the same time, and that if an applicant could chew gum as well, it would be a bonus.
Another request was made for experienced teachers for asylum seekers and it was pointed out that Hillingdon had a big problem in that respect. Retention problems were mentioned and it was said that teachers felt overloaded. Concerns were expressed about political interference and impossible deadlines. House prices and salaries were, of course, identified as an additional problem. I have many other issues to raise; perhaps I shall have to take another opportunity to do so. One primary school head referred to the problem of the demise of the B Ed degree and its impact on recruitment.
I have also been told that classroom assistants are bearing the brunt of the teacher supply problem. They feel that their position is largely unrecognised and relatively unrewarded. We have another problem that we are taking up with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, concerning funding, and the cash settlement in particular. Perhaps it could be noted that we are awaiting its reply to a letter about that problem.
While I am on the subject of replies, St. Mary's primary school in my constituency is waiting for an urgent reply because of a period of tender that expires on 26 January, but in fact that reply has not been awaited all that long,


and I shall send on the proper details later. I have just received the information, and I thought that I would get that one in.
The timing of the problem is unfortunate because it has occurred at a specific point in an election cycle. Given the politicians that we are, the subject will become a focus. That is unfortunate, because it means that the focus will not be on resolving the problem. We should seriously consider removing the subject from the strictly party political arena, even at this stage in the election cycle, because retaining it there does a disservice to children, parents and teachers.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about raising teachers' status in society and improving everyone's attitude to them. I do not know which Minister can give a steer on the matter, but I am sick and tired of seeing teachers portrayed on television as rather bizarre people. The heroes, especially on children's television, are the kids who rebel, and anybody who does well is regarded as a swot.

Mr. Hilary Benn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), not least because we have one thing in common: I, too, have a spouse who is a special needs teacher. We have many a conversation on a Friday night about how the day has gone, and about the experience, stresses and strains of teaching in an inner-city school.
There is consensus about the existence of a problem: hon. Members agree about that. The question is what we do about it. The most disappointing aspect of the Opposition opening speech was the lack of ideas about how to tackle the current difficulties. The House does itself a disservice if we spend time wailing, gnashing our teeth and pulling our hair out about a problem instead of trying to identify practical solutions. However, I am glad to say that we have begun to do that in the later stages of the debate.
I welcomed the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he outlined practical steps. I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for reminding us of the facts about improved educational performance. It is important to recognise the success of teachers in our country, and not to be dragged down by the argument that standards are falling, which they are not.
I want to mention briefly the reasons for the structure that we now have for getting more information about what happens in schools. I think that future historians will identify the famous moment in 1976 when Jim Callaghan made his Ruskin speech as the beginning of the process whereby Governments of all political persuasions have sought greater means to influence what happens in schools. He talked about the secret garden of the curriculum. More than a generation later, that secret garden is well and truly open.
When some hon. Members talk about the burdens that are placed on teachers, we must acknowledge that the national curriculum and the inspection framework flowed from Jim Callaghan's speech, principally because these structures give us more information about what happens

in schools. Society now acknowledges that the success of our schools is partly due to, for example, the quality of the leadership and the approach to teaching. It is not simply a matter of leaving all schools to get on with it by themselves. We have a lot to learn from each other. That applies to teachers as much as to any other profession.
We need to recognise that greater accountability has accompanied these changes. If we are honest, none of us finds greater accountability easy to accept. The teaching profession has experienced that in the past two decades, and the medical profession is beginning to do so. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who chairs the Education Sub-Committee, that respect for teachers is currently an important issue partly because parents are better informed and educated than they were in the past. The position of teachers as the fount of all knowledge, the people to whom we all look up because they know things that we do not, does not apply as much nowadays. Although it is difficult, teachers have to get used to that.
Greater information about what happens in schools has also enabled the Government to say, "We can do better." I welcome that. Although we have always known that social background and previous educational attainment have a major impact on children's achievements, we realise increasingly how individual schools and leadership can make a difference.
I want to highlight the case of one school in my constituency, Little London primary school, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly opened a couple of months age after the fire that destroyed the old school. It is located in the 11th most deprived local authority ward in England and Wales. A high proportion of children receive free school meals. However, in the past three years, a dramatic improvement has occurred in the percentage of children achieving level 4 in English and maths, which has increased from the mid-20s to the mid-50s.
The secret of that success has been good leadership, hard work, committed and dedicated teachers and the support of the literacy and numeracy strategies. They have been highlighted as an example of damaging Government intervention in schools, but the response of many head teachers and staff in the schools in my constituency tells me that that is not the case. They have focused effort on improvement, and ultimately the children benefit.
I welcome today's debate because it keeps education at the forefront of our concerns. The Government and all hon. Members need to continue to hold an open dialogue with the teaching profession. Clearly, we must learn from teachers how we can give them more help to do the job that they want to do.
I conclude with perhaps a slightly controversial point. We must all value teachers, and that includes teachers valuing themselves. Our job is to give support, praise and encouragement, but I believe that teachers should be more confident about what they are doing. When teachers say, "I am a teacher, I am proud of that and proud of the difference I make to children in my class. I believe that I am doing a good job," they will receive a "Hear, hear" from all hon. Members, and they will also encourage others who are considering teaching as a profession to become teachers.

Mr. James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). Although I did not agree with all his remarks, I agree that we need to find new solutions to the current problems. However, we need to recognise the nature and scale of the problem and that the Government's current policies simply do not work. The evidence for that is clear in the numbers of teachers who are being recruited and the problems that schools face.
We need to define the nature and scale of the problem because it has been suggested in same quarters that it is local, affects only one or two schools and that it can be solved if one or two schools get some extra teachers. It is a nationwide problem, which affects all types of school in every part of the country. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned the problems of the private sector. Earlier this week, the Independent Schools Council, which represents 1,300 independent schools, complained of recruitment problems. Dulwich college, which is at the top of the academic league, has difficulty in attracting teachers. Other academically excellent schools in the state sector, such as Watford grammar school for boys and Watford grammar school for girls, experience difficulty in attracting teachers. I infer from all that that there is a problem throughout the country, especially in the south-east, where the most extreme manifestation of the crisis occurs.
My constituency is no exception. I have referred to the difficulties of Watford grammar school for boys; those apply to all types of school in my constituency and throughout Hertfordshire. Let the teachers speak for themselves. In an NUT survey of schools in Hertfordshire, every school admitted suffering some staff shortages. The survey found that many teachers are turning to agency work to bypass the increasing bureaucratic burdens of teaching. It stated:
Hertfordshire's children are often taught by short-term, daily supply teachers or are covered by non-specialists.
That is not good enough for children in Hertfordshire, and it is not good enough for children in the rest of the country. It is not good for the hard-pressed, hard-working teachers in Hertfordshire and the rest of the country, who deserve our esteem. They should not be placed in that position.
We have been told that we must be careful about the terms we use to describe this recruitment problem. I shall adopt the term that the Secretary of State used on the 'Today" programme in November last year. He said:
Yes, there is a serious problem and had we not acted at the end of March I think we'd have been very close to meltdown.
He went on to say that there had been a problem of recruitment in the early part of the last academic year, but that the policies that the Government had introduced, on top of the golden hellos, the training bursaries, the advertising programme, and the graduate teacher programme, had made a difference and had enabled teacher recruitment to turn the corner.
The Secretary of State's credibility is not assisted by the fact that, at the very time he said that the recruitment

drive was close to meltdown, the Minister for School Standards was issuing press releases, such as that in December 1999, saying:
These figures indicate encouraging progress in recruitment to teacher training. We have started to make a difference … The outlook for teacher recruitment is better than it has been for some time.
Those are the views of the Minister, but at the same time the Secretary of State evidently thought that there was a crisis which was close to a meltdown.
The important point is: what is the position today? What is the position now that the Government have implemented the policies that the Secretary of State has told us about—the golden hellos and the measures adopted in March last year, such as salaries for graduates entering teacher training? What is the position on recruitment to secondary teacher training, because the greatest problem is faced by secondary schools? In the academic year that commenced in September 2000, the number recruited for teacher training in secondary education was still well below the number recruited under the Conservative Government in the academic year beginning in 1996—there were 1,000 fewer recruits. More important than that, it was well below the Government's own target for secondary recruits—the figure that the Government say is needed for the future—and way below the number required in the shortage subjects of maths and foreign languages.
What is happening in the current year? Suspiciously— I agree with the suspicions expressed elsewhere—the Graduate Teacher Training Registry has rushed out a press release showing the number of applications for teacher training so far this year. Last week, the Secretary of State put an optimistic spin on those figures at Question Time. He said:
The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks have led to a dramatic improvement in the number of people seeking information or registering … Our measures have led to a massive increase in those registering an interest.—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1220.]
He said that there had been a 100 per cent. increase in the number of people making general inquiries.
What is the picture? How many people have applied for teacher training courses this year compared with last year? The number of secondary recruits is slightly up by 4 per cent. from the low point it was at last year. The number of recruits in key shortage subjects, such as maths and foreign languages, is down on last year, which was a poor year when the Government were way below the target that they needed to meet, especially in maths.
A real crisis is building up in maths, because the Government are about 30 per cent. below their own target for the number of teachers required to teach that subject. As for the comments made about the numbers recruited under the Conservative Government to teach maths in secondary education, they were greater in every year of that Government than they are now. In some of those years, the figure was greater than the present Government's target, which they have manifestly failed to meet.
Ministers must realise that, if the current situation is a problem, a crisis, a serious problem, a meltdown, or whatever we want to call it, it will get that much worse in the future. We need new thinking, because the Government's own statistics show that the policies they


have implemented are not working. We had good evidence of new thinking in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Ministers should listen to what she and many parents, teachers and heads are telling them about reducing bureaucratic burdens and restoring discipline in schools.
The Government's policies are not working. We are on course for a much more serious problem. The Government will fail to put teachers in front of classes to teach children. We need new thinking to avoid that, and we have not got it at the moment.

Ms Dari Taylor: I have great pleasure in contributing to this debate as I was a teacher in my early professional life and I have maintained a keen interest in education ever since. My pleasure is added to because I believe that the Government have got the policy right, and will continue to get it right. It is not just the policies on standards that are appropriate, but the funding has been superb and the teaching profession in my constituency has said so again and again.
I am keen to put a local perspective on the debate. Schools in my local authority are not on a four-day week, and they are not threatened with a four-day week. Children are not being sent home early, and there is no evidence that teachers are being replaced by unqualified staff.
I want to focus more particularly on my constituency. I was elected in 1997, and in each of the two previous years, 1995–97, the Conservative Administration had cut my local authority's education budget by £6 million. It had had to make 52 members of staff take early retirement or face redundancy. It is with great pleasure that I say to the House that, although it is a strain to fill all the posts, it is tremendous that there is demand in the system and we are seeking to supply it. Take it from me, that is a superb moment for the teaching profession. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is shaking his head. Teaching staff in my constituency will see his party's proposition as a shabby misrepresentation, and I am more than pleased to rub that in.
I say to my Front-Bench colleagues with great care and passion—because that is my approach to life—that I have had robust meetings with head teachers in my constituency. They have been robust about the way in which they want the Government to respond to them, but there is serious pleasure at much of what we are doing. They are telling my right hon. Friend that, at times, the inspectorate undermines them and they want him to review its operation. They do not object to being inspected, but they want the process to be more proactive. They believe that that may happen now that there has been a change at the top. They like the fact that the standards debate is demanding and exacting, and they find that exciting. They are pleased at the way in which new maths at key stage 2 is being taught, and they say how much they have learned.
I have much of value to say about education in Stockton, South. There is a demand for primary school teachers and schools in less-advantaged areas are struggling to fill posts, but they are doing so. There is a

demand for maths teachers, and we are finding that demand problematic, but we are filling the posts. Teachers tell me that the problems they face are those that the previous Administration left them.
The Government made a commitment to people in Stockton, South, and I reinforced it, that five to seven-year-olds would be in classes of under 30 pupils. I have pleasure in telling the House that by September, we shall have achieved that goal. I am extremely pleased to make that statement, and I know that this has been achieved as a result of the way in which the Government have pursued that course of action. I also take great pleasure in telling hon. Members that 25 per cent. more 11-year-olds in my constituency will achieve key stage 2. That is tremendous.
I would love to tell the House about the specialist schools in my constituency, and about the way in which we have received capital and standard spends that we did not have previously, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am aware that I do not have time to do so. However, I can say to my right hon. Friend that, in Stockton, South, there is serious pleasure and pride in all that the Government are doing. Of course, my constituents ask one thing: could we do more, and could we do it more speedily?

Mr. Graham Brady: It is a great pleasure to be able to respond to an excellent short debate, which has taken place only because of the Conservative Opposition, who have again highlighted an extremely important issue for parents, schools and children throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—who has had to leave early—spoke at length and blamed everybody, in characteristic fashion. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—who is no longer in his piace—rightly described the Secretary of State's speech as mercifully brief, before going on to make a courageous attack on the Barnett formula, thus starting the election campaign in Scotland a little early.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made the point that Ministers have not yet replied to letters received from a school in his constituency, which were sent in September and October. [Interruption.] The Minister for School Standards seems to suggest that she wants to blame her officials for that, rather than take the rap herself. That is typical of Ministers in this Government, but she really ought to understand that it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that those things are done. The school in question is now out of special measures, but perhaps the Department for Education and Employment should be put into special measures to put right its failures.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made a thoughtful speech. Sadly, I do not have time to deal with the interesting and intelligent points that he made, but I particularly enjoyed his tour of Jim Callaghan's secret garden. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) reminded the House in a timely manner that there is a serious problem in education nationwide, and it was important that he did so, particularly as the hon. Member for Stockton South (Ms Taylor) then returned us to the shocking complacency that has been characteristic of the Government's response on this serious crisis. Labour Members can be complacent if they wish, but


when David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers says that teacher recruitment is "approaching meltdown", serious commentators and observers in the House and elsewhere know that there is a serious problem.
The Secretary of State claims that there are more teachers, but he does not say how many are part time, or supply teachers. He does not say how many come from overseas, or are not of qualified teacher status. The breathtaking complacency of his speech was backed up by the contributions from Labour Members, while my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State, was speaking. At that point, the only thing that Labour Members had to say was, "What would you do?" It became painfully obvious that hon. Members on the Government Benches were devoid of ideas. They have had four years in which they have generated this problem and made it worse. Now, all that they can do is ask us what we would do in their place.
The Secretary of State generously accepted a policy suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, and it is welcome and right that he should do so. Why does he not let us put all our policy recommendations into practice? Let us cut out the middleman and solve all Labour's problems.
The Secretary of State unwisely used the metaphor of the highwayman. In fact, the highwayman is Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer, who takes our tax but delivers no teachers. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) for his applause. The Secretary of State spoke of reduced class sizes leading to rising demand for teachers. However, he did not explain that class sizes are going up in primary schools, secondary schools and reception classes. Even the 30-in-a-class limit that the Government pledged is, according to the January-February issue of The Teacher magazine, now under threat because of the Government's failures in teacher recruitment. The Government really ought to start taking this problem seriously, but the Secretary of State showed no signs of doing so.
The Secretary of State spoke of the weeks that it takes to process applications, but he has had four years in office, and he must now take responsibility for the crisis that is evident in the nation's schools. We have had nothing from the Government apart from gimmicks, new schemes and new initiatives. The hon. Member for Huddersfield talked about Lord Puttnam's staff room of the future, which he said had never emerged.

Mr. Sheerman: I did not say that.

Mr. Brady: I think the record will demonstrate that he did.
Earlier in this Parliament, the Government pledged that people on the new deal were going to be brought into the classrooms to work as classroom assistants. In 1998, the Government trumpeted a trial that was to be run in two areas of Wales—Cardiff and, I think, Wrexham—to see how many unemployed people could be brought in through the new deal to work as classroom assistants in Wales. However, a few weeks ago, when I asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many classroom assistants had been brought into schools under the new deal, I was told that information on the destination of new deal participants was not collected at that level of detail. The proposal was just another gimmick, another initiative not followed up, that did not help our schools.
Education action zones were an experiment but, according to The Times Educational Supplement, the existing 73 are now being quietly halted.

Ms Estelle Morris: Wrong.

Mr. Brady: The Minister says that I am wrong, but the Government did not bother to dispute that at the time.
The Secretary of State referred to the Teacher Training Agency hotline with glowing praise. That was one of the main fig-leaves that he clutched when trying to protect his failures in teacher recruitment. When I phoned the TTA hotline this morning, I received a response that might explain why there have been so many more calls to the line recently. When I dialed the number, I was told that all the consultants were engaged. The Secretary of State will say that that is positive, because the service is so popular. I was then asked whether I would like to be sent a brochure rather than wait to speak to somebody. I said, "No, I would like to speak to somebody." The person I was talking to asked whether I would like to enter the queueing system. I said, "Yes", whereupon I was told, "Good luck". [Interruption.] The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is calling this a stunt. It was quite the reverse, because I went to the trouble of finding out what the Government are doing about teacher recruitment and I found the service to be an appalling failure. The hotline is the stunt. When I had waited for three minutes, I was cut off without any response. I can assure hon. Members that I was prepared to wait for longer.
The Secretary of State said that teachers should be left to teach, but he is on record as saying that teachers should become learning managers in charge of what are now being described as bodies being put in front of a class. The trouble with bringing unqualified teachers, or anyone who is able to fill the gap, into a classroom is that it does not deliver what parents or schools want, or what children need. Parents do not want learning managers; they want teachers. Teachers do not want to be learning managers. They want respect for their professionalism, and the space to be allowed to teach.
Nigel de Gruchy of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers—a body that the Secretary of State now appears to hold in low esteem—has commented that
the Government seems to have thrown in the towel—
on teacher recruitment. He goes on to say that
substituting adults with unspecified qualifications for teachers is a policy of despair.
[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, The hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), can chunter as much as she likes from the Government Front Bench. When her former friends in the teaching unions are now describing the Government's education policy as a "policy of despair", the Government really ought to take it seriously and consider where the problem lies.
The problem exists across the country. Positions are being filled by overseas teachers. Schools are being forced to recruit new teachers from Australia over the telephone. The press in my area—the Manchester Evening News — reports, under the headline "G'day Manchester", that an army of Australian teachers is being flown in to stop the recruitment crisis. Overseas teachers consider this country


a base while they do Europe. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that that is good. It is good if they stay in the long term. It is good if they are sufficiently educated and sufficiently qualified and if they know the ways of the British education system. It is not good, the Secretary of State should admit, if they have been brought here for a short period to fill a gap. It is not good—[Interruption.]
The Secretary of State can try to make a joke, but it is not good if Australian teachers or teachers from around the world come here in rapid succession and stay for just a term or a matter of weeks. Children will not have a teacher whom they can come to rely on. That is another part of the crisis, which is of his and Labour's making. We need free schools—schools with the freedom to run their own affairs and teachers who have the freedom to teach. All that the Government have to offer is bureaucracy, gimmicks and spin. It is time for a change.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I am not sure how to respond to the announcement that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who spent the morning ringing the Teacher Training Agency hotline, is seeking an alternative career. Perhaps congratulations are in order from us, and commiserations from his colleagues. Helpful as ever, I shall make sure that his call is returned so that he can fill in an application form and add to the 10 per cent. increase in applications for initial teacher training that have already been received this year.
Seriously, I begin by thanking hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I readily accept that all Members, no matter which side they represent, consider teaching an important issue. All constituency MPs care about their schools; all parents care about their children. On that, at least, I can start with a measure of agreement. I also acknowledge the generous and correct way in which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) described the achievement of teachers and the way in which standards have been raised.
Support came from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who represents a constituency of considerable challenge where generation after generation of children has lost out in the education service. I suspect not only that the school in Little London to which he referred has no history of sending children to university and higher education, but that its children come from families whose members have never attended university.
Although one may refer to the increase in literacy and numeracy standards, the figures for the standards agenda that please me most are those showing that, for the first time, standards of literacy and numeracy and for GCSE are increasing across the country, in all neighbourhoods. The fastest rate of improvement is in schools and local authorities that under-achieved in the past. Closing the gap between performance in poor and rich neighbourhoods, between those from different ethnic minorities and between boys and girls is the real mark of an education service that is being transformed so that it will never go back to being a lottery in which receiving a good standard of education depends on which school a person attends.
That improvement has been achieved only because of the increasing quality of teaching. No matter what anybody says about the difficulties and the challenges facing schools—I shall come to those—the truth is that the quality of teaching in our primary and secondary schools has shot up. It is better than last year, better than three years ago and certainly better than when I and many Members of the House were teaching nine or 10 years ago. That is a tribute to the teaching profession.
I am the first to acknowledge that more is asked of teachers than was ever asked of any previous generation of teachers. More is expected because the Government are asking teachers to end the cycle of under-achievement in some of our neighbourhoods and to become the first generation of teachers to work with the Government so that both can say, "We raised standards, not for a few, but for every child in every school, no matter which part of the country those children live in."
Yes, recruitment is difficult, and I want to acknowledge the challenges that many schools face. I thank teachers who take cover lessons. There is not a Member of the House who has been a teacher who does not know that that is the least favourite task of any teacher. It gives me no pride or satisfaction to say so, but I know that some of the teacher recruitment troubles that schools face are not new. I am afraid that the same problems existed when I was teaching. We lost cover lessons. I taught combined classes. Classes had a list of supply teachers over the terms. I know that that is not good, not right and not the way that we want it to be.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central and for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) gave a proper evaluation and analysis of what is happening, and that is what we should all do. The truth is that this nation's inability to recruit the brightest and the best to teaching at any time other than one of economic recession or depression is one of its saddest aspects. That has held back progress in our schools for too long, and it is what we inherited.
I shall not quote statistics back to the House or give masses of figures for 1992–94 or 1994–97. We can play games and score points, but, as was borne out by the report by Professor Alan Smithers, we were below target on secondary recruitment every single year in the 1990s, unless the economy was in recession. That was the Tories' one-club approach to solving the teacher crisis: hang on, wait for a recession and more people will want to go into teaching.
The challenge for the Government has been breaking that cycle, and we have broken it. It has always been difficult to recruit teachers in the British economy, so from the moment we, took office, we introduced a series of initiatives and measures that are having a real impact on the number and quality of people coming into schools. On retention, the Government have not introduced a staged pay increase. Indeed, we have given a fully-funded above-inflation pay Increase every single year. We have introduced performance-related pay as an incentive for teachers who teach well to stay in schools, get promotion and earn more money without taking on administrative responsibilities.
We are the Government who introduced the golden hellos and reversed the decline in recruitment to shortage subjects for the first time since the recession of the early and mid-1990s. We are the Government who introduced the training salaries. Under our Government, those who want to return to teaching in London can not only go on a course for no charge, but get paid £150 a week to do so. We are the Government who are bringing 12,000 returners back to our classrooms. In terms of retention and attracting the best, under our Government, a training salary of £15,000 can assist those who want to train to teach in a shortage subject to do so through the fast-track approach.
The real test of whether we are right and whether we have fulfilled our obligations to the teaching community and the children of this country is whether those initiatives are working. They have been costed and carefully implemented. They are based on evidence and targeted on the areas of greatest need and, yes, they are working. That is why last year, for the first time, the decline in the number of people training as teachers was reversed. That was not imagined, nor was it due to us counting the numbers. It was nothing to do with spin. Real bodies—men and women—went to train as teachers last year, and there has been a 9 per cent. increase. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was right: the increase is greater in primary than in secondary schools, but there has been an increase in secondary schools as well.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: No, I do not have time.
That increase should be added to the number of people taking graduate-based routes. This is the beginning of a turnaround. I am not saying that that is enough. I know that we are still not hitting our targets. I know that the maths figures are still 3 per cent. below last year's, even though the figures for chemistry, for example, are 33 per cent. up on those for this time last year. The figures for biology are up as well. [Interruption.] That is not complacency; it is a mark of a Government who have grasped the teacher recruitment problem. The figures represent not hanging around for a recession, but bucking the trend in times of economic strength in this nation. That is what we have done.
I put this challenge to the Opposition: their one policy, apart from waiting for a recession, is to take away the paperwork. Not only would they take away the paperwork, but they have failed to guarantee the education budget. They guarantee only the budget for a school. They would take away training salaries, golden hellos and recruitment strategy managers—all the initiatives that have not only helped recruitment, but supported teachers. They would take away learning support units, excellence in cities and education action zones. All are centrally funded through the standards fund.
Teachers are the most important professionals in our society. The jobs that they do on behalf of us all are immeasurably valuable, and we owe them our thanks. With us, teachers also have the support of the Government.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 309.

Division No. 66]
[4 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Leigh, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Body, Sir Richard
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Brady, Graham
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne



Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Malins, Humfrey


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Mates, Michael


(Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Moss, Malcolm


(Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norman, Archie


Collins, Tim
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ottaway, Richard



Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Prior, David


Duncan, Alan
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Faber, David
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Spring, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Tredinnick, David


Hawkins, Nick
Trend, Michael


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Wells, Bowen


Horam, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jenkin, Bernard



Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. John Randall and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Alexander, Douglas


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Allan, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe






Atkins, Charlotte
Dobbin, Jim


Austin, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bailey, Adrian
Dowd, Jim


Ballard, Jackie
Drown, Ms Julia


Banks, Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Barron, Kevin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bayley, Hugh
Edwards, Huw


Beard, Nigel
Efford, Clive


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Feam, Ronnie


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benton, Joe
Flint, Caroline


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Best, Harold
Follett, Barbara


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gapes, Mike


Bradshaw, Ben
Gardiner, Barry


Brake, Tom
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Brand, Dr Peter
Gerrard, Neil


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Browne, Desmond
Gidley, Sandra


Buck, Ms Karen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Burgon, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Burstow, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Grogan, John



Hain, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hancock, Mike


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Hope, Phil


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)




Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dismore, Andrew
Joyce, Eric





Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pound, Stephen



Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rendel, David


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rogers, Allan


Lammy, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Roy, Frank


Laxton, Bob
Ruane, Chris


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Sarwar, Mohammad


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Singh, Marsha


McDonagh, Siobhain
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Snape, Peter


McWalter, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Maxton, John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Meale, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Merron, Gillian
Stunell, Andrew


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mullin, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Hara, Eddie
Tyler, Paul


Öpik, Lembit
Tynan, Bill


Organ, Mrs Diana
Vis, Dr Rudi


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Walley, Ms Joan


Pearson, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Pike, Peter L
White, Brian


Plaskitt, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pope, Greg
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)






Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek


Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony



Wray, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Clive Betts and


Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 151.

division No. 67]
[4.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Crausby, David


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Alexander, Douglas
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Darvill, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davidson, Ian


Austin, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bailey, Adrian
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Banks, Tony



Barnes, Harry
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dismore, Andrew


Beard, Nigel
Dobbin,, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Drown, Ms Julia


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Berry, Roger
Efford, Clive


Best, Harold
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blears, Ms Hazel
Etherington, Bill


Blizzard, Bob
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flint, Caroline


Bradshaw, Ben
Flynn, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Follett, Barbara


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burgon, Colin
Foulkes, George


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Galloway George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Caton, Martin
Gerard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clapham, Michael
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan,, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hodge, Ms Margaret





Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil



Howells, Dr Kim
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jamieson, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pound, Stephen


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Powell, Sir Raymond


Joyce, Eric
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rammell, Bill


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Khabra, Piara S
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kidney, David
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kilfoyle, Peter



King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rogers, Allan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Lammy, David
Ruane, Chris


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruddock, Joan


Laxton, Bob
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lepper, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCabe, Steve
Singh, Marsha


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonnell, John



McFall, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNulty, Tony
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Mallaber, Judy
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Martlew, Eric
Stringer, Graham


Maxton, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mitchell, Austin
Timms, Stephen


Moffatt, Laura



Moonie, Dr Lewis







Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Todd, Mark



Truswell, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wyatt, Derek


Walley, Ms Joan



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, David
Mr. Don Touhig and


White, Brian
Mr. Clive Betts.



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Faber, David


Allan, Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fearn, Ronnie


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Right, Howard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ballard, Jackie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fraser, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gale, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gidley, Sandra


Brady, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brake, Tom
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brand, Dr Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gray, James


Breed, Colin
Grieve, Dominic


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hammond, Philip


Burns, Simon
Hancock, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Harris, Dr Evan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hayes, John


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Heald, Oliver



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David



Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Cotter, Brian
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James



Curry, Rt Hon David
Key, Robert


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Kirkwood, Archy


Day, Stephen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lansley, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel
Letwin, Oliver





Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
St Aubyn, Nick


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Loughton, Tim
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spicer, Sir Michael


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stunell, Andrew


Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond


Maples, John
Syms, Robert


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moss, Malcolm
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John


Norman, Archie
Tredinnick, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Trend, Michael


Öpik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul



Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Walter, Robert


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Prior, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Rendel, David
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruffley, David
Mr. John Randall and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the enormous strides taken over the last three years to make teaching a more attractive profession; particularly welcomes the introduction of a new career structure and performance-related pay to assist retention, a greater emphasis on continuing professional development and the development of golden hellos in shortage subjects and teacher training salaries, which mean that there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years; further welcomes the practical steps taken by the Government to assist headteachers facing recruitment problems in some areas and the measures which have been taken to reduce needless bureaucracy in schools; applauds the improved achievement levels by both primary and secondary pupils, the big reduction in infant class sizes since 1997 and the substantial increase in teaching assistants and learning mentors to offer practical support to pupils and teachers; and notes that the number of teachers in post is higher than at any time in the last decade as a direct result of greater investment in education by the Government, and that the School Teachers' Review Body will report soon.

Police Numbers

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Miss Aim Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's failure to fulfil its manifesto commitment strongly to support the police; notes that police numbers in England and Wales were rising when the Government came into office; regrets the decline in police numbers of more than 2,500 since the General Election, including the loss of 1,900 constables, contrary to the Government's manifesto pledge to get more officers back on the beat: further regrets the dramatic decline of one third in the number of special constables; notes the comments of senior police figures that policing is in a state of crisis; condemns the Government's decision to release before serving half their prison sentences more than 200 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers; notes with regret the low level of police morale and the 60 per cent. rise in voluntary resignations from the police since the Government came to power; and calls on the Government urgently to take measures to improve morale in the police force, to restore police numbers at least to the levels they inherited, and to increase the visibility of the police in order better to protect the public at a time when violent crime is soaring.
I quote:
The police have our strong support. They are in the front line of the fight against crime and disorder. We will … get more officers back on the beat.
Those are striking words, and Labour Members should remember them well. They are printed on page 22 of the Labour party manifesto for the 1997 general election.
The Home Secretary told the police Federation in May 1997 that
the police have my wholehearted support and the wholehearted support of this new Government. We will do all that we can to ensure our police service is strong and effective. We will also support you by providing the protection and the resources you require.
However, as with so many manifesto promises, it has been all spin and no delivery. No one doubts that policing in this country is in a state of crisis. The chairman of the Police Federation has said that there is
a crisis of no confidence, a crisis of no cash and a crisis of no colleagues.
Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, talked only last month of a crisis in the policing of London. As long ago as June, he warned the Home Secretary:
We do not have enough officers to police London with confidence.
Figures given this week by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), show that 29 of the 32 divisions in London are below budgeted strength. The chief constable of Lincolnshire has said:
Police forces are struggling with the stark facts that police numbers have fallen, workload has increased and budgets have not grown.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem exists in parts of the country other than Norwich and London? The office of the chief constable of Staffordshire has told me that, on Friday and Saturday nights, there are just three police

officers, backed up by a small band of special constables, to police the entire Lichfield area. Does she consider that adequate?

Miss Widdecombe: No; it is entirely disgraceful. Even more regrettable is the fact that it is by no means untypical. Many police forces are telling their Members of Parliament about exactly the same sort of unacceptable policing levels, which prevail not just on Friday and Saturday nights, but on other nights as well.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I spoke to police officers in my constituency last Friday, and they told me that the biggest disincentive to recruitment in the south-east was the removal of the housing allowance in 1994. I seem to remember that a Conservative Government were in power at that time. Will she say why that Government took away that allowance?

Miss Widdecombe: Police numbers rose after that date, which suggests that removal of the allowance was not the disincentive that the hon. Gentleman claims.
This month, the magazine Public Finance reported:
Police authorities are warning of a tight year ahead, despite the seemingly generous 10 per cent. funding increase announced in November … local budgets are set to increase by a more modest 5 per cent … Police forces face increased costs of 5.6 per cent. just to keep their heads above water … this will leave many authorities with significant shortfalls.
The chief constable of Cumbria has said that his force
will be facing cuts again next year.
No one in his right mind can doubt that policing is in a state of crisis.

Ms Hazel Blears: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I will shortly, but I want to make some progress. Only the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary cling to the notion that policing is not in crisis. The Home Secretary told the House on 12 December that he did not believe that policing was in crisis. On 17 May last year, the House was treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister trying to defend his Government's indefensible record by declaring that he did not believe that policing was "in crisis". On the same day, the Home Secretary addressed the Police Federation conference in front of letters 3 ft high that spelled out the conference theme, which was "Policing in Crisis". Beyond doubt, this Government have brought about that crisis in policing.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a recent Audit Commission report that measured public confidence in the police, force by force. It found that, in Norfolk, public confidence in police on the beat stood at only 8 per cent., the second lowest level in the country. Does she agree that that lack of confidence results not from the performance of the police who, given their resources, do well, but from the fact that Norfolk has lost 44 officers since the 1997 election? The Government have also failed to take notice of the advice that they commissioned with regard to the problems of policing in sparsely populated rural areas. What would my right hon. Friend do about the problem?

Miss Widdecombe: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. By coincidence, I have here a few more figures


on Norfolk. Not only has there been a decline of 44 regular officers since the election, but while 23 special constables have joined, 70 have left. That is a double whammy for the Norfolk police.
My right hon. Friend asks, quite reasonably, what I would do. We have said that we will do several things. First, we will get police numbers back to at least what they were when we left office.

Mr. Nigel Beard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall continue answering my right hon. Friend first. After that I am indebted to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) for an intervention, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
As I was saying, getting police numbers back to what they were when we left office should not be so impossible, given that we were maintaining and funding those numbers only three and a half years ago. Furthermore, we have said that it is not enough simply to get the numbers up. It is crucial to make sure that policemen spend their time policing, not pen-pushing in stations. Therefore, in co-operation with the police, we shall carry out a comprehensive review of all their functions, with the aim of removing inessential and unnecessary tasks and giving them to other bodies to perform. In that way, the police may do what they joined up to do and what the public expect them to do—that is, to be in the front line against crime.

Maria Eagle: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I am still answering my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I have been asked what we would do and the list is quite long.
We have said that we will take specific measures to increase visibility in rural areas, such as having police spend some time doing necessary paperwork in public places rather than just whizzing through villages and going back to the police station. We have said that we will consider a national police cadet force. We have said that we will consider better use of part-timers. We have said that we will consider reusing the skills of those who have retired and whose skills are lost to the force. We have said that we might even look at retained policemen in rural areas in the same way as we look at retained firemen. We have further said that we will free up parish councils where necessary, to make their own policing arrangements. That is a comprehensive package, and I urge the Home Secretary to be big enough to learn from it and adopt some of its measures.

Ms Blears: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. If policing is in such crisis—and she paints a terrible picture—why, in December last year, did Greater Manchester police recruit 65 new officers to the force, the largest number it has ever recruited? Why does it have £6 million extra, through a generous budget settlement, to distribute to forces for front-line policing? That is not the kind of crisis that I recognise from the right hon. Lady's comments.

Miss Widdecombe: It would appear that the hon. Lady is at odds with every chief constable whom I have so far quoted. They believe that the police have a problem.
The hon. Lady refers to recruitment. What about retention, wastage, resignation and sickness rates? The hon. Lady cannot simply be selective and quote one figure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), as I promised, and then make some more progress before giving way again.

Mr. Beard: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Is it not a strange time to cry crisis, when the right hon. Lady knows full well that police numbers have been in decline since 1993, and that this is the first time recruitment has turned around? Is it also not strange to claim that there is a crisis when the number of recruits in training has gone up by 74 per cent.? Is not this part of a stunt to create gloom and despondency and a climate of fear, in the hope that something might be gained electorally for her party?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should read less party political propaganda from Millbank and rather more facts from the Home Office statistical bulletins, to which I will now turn. He will find that just about every one of his points is either completely wrong as fact or has been taken out of context and does not stand up when considered against other factors.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I did say that I was going to make progress, but because the right hon. Gentleman is who he is, I will give way.

Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. Does she agree with the shadow Chancellor that spending under a Conservative Government should rise by only 2.2 per cent. a year in real terms?

Miss Widdecombe: That is to misquote the shadow Chancellor. For the moment—not for much longer—the right hon. Gentleman represents the Government, and it is their record that I am about to examine, whether he likes it or not. I do not think that he will like the following examination very much.
The Government's manifesto promised to get more police back on the beat. However, since 1997, overall police numbers have fallen by more than 2,500. That figure includes a drop of more than 1,900 in the number of constables. In May 1997, the Home Secretary told the Police Federation that constables were central to the success of the police
the visible presence of the police on our streets is a traditional strength of British policing which is more, not less important in today's environment.
Yet the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, published two days ago, show that there are 1,900 fewer full-time constables and more than 6,000 fewer special constables under this Government—a fall of one third. Yet again, all spin and no delivery.
The standard defence of ill-informed Labour Members is that police numbers have been falling steadily since 1993. However, that defence fails to acknowledge that numbers rose in the year before the Government came to power and, crucially, that the number of constables rose year on year throughout that period. Furthermore, the number of special constables was rising when the Government came to power. Labour Members need not take my word for it. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, revealed yesterday in a written answer that in March 1993 there were 95,501 constables in England and Wales. That figure rose year on year until the election, until in March 1997 there were 96,914 constables. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford can work out that that was an increase of 1,413 since 1993.
Under this Government, the visible presence of the police on our streets has suffered. There are more than 1,900 fewer constables, nearly 400 fewer sergeants, more than 250 fewer inspectors—all round, there are fewer front-line crime fighters.
What does the Home Secretary have to say to the 62-year-old resident of the Warwick estate at Knottingley, near Pontefract? He is terrorised in his own home by gangs of youths, and has put the local police station number on his list in his British Telecom friends and family discount scheme because he has to make daily calls for help. He says:
I am frightened to death. It's unbearable … I can't live like this. The police, as individuals, are very good, but we need more of them on the streets, patrolling the estate.
That is the view of the majority of people in this country.

Maria Eagle: Will the right hon Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I am going to make some progress, but I remember that the hon. Lady has been trying to intervene and I will give way to her in a little while.
As the new Audit Commission figures show, 57 per cent. of people are unhappy with the number of police on our streets. We saw on Tuesday the announcement of what was billed by the Home Secretary's spin doctors as a massive 74 per cent. increase in police recruitment, a figure repeated in today's Government amendment. The right hon. Gentleman neglects to point out, however, that that is, of course, a 74 per cent. increase compared to last year, which saw the lowest numbers recruited for many years.
He does not draw attention to the fact that, last year, the number of police recruits was just over 4,000, whereas the year before the previous general election the number was 6,500. That very much puts into perspective what he bills as a massive increase.
Rather than increasing under the Labour Government, police recruitment is only now returning to the numbers inherited by the Government after it had been allowed to fall by nearly a third. On Tuesday, the chairman of the Police Federation hit that particular nail right on the head, when he said:
All additional officers are welcome but if you have previously failed to recruit adequately, then any increase will look positive.
The Home Secretary fools no one with his repeated attempts to spin police recruitment statistics. People wised up to the right hon. Gentleman's methods after they found

out exactly how his spin doctors misled the Labour party and the country with that fiddled conference pledge in October 1999.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am listening carefully to her speech. During the 18 minutes of the first part of her speech, she has not once mentioned crime rates. Is that because they have fallen by 7 per cent?

Miss Widdecombe: I am coming to that.

Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. Lady believe that there is a direct correlation between the number of officers in post, recruited and working—I approve of the increase in numbers—and falling crime rates?

Miss Widdecombe: I certainly believe that there is a direct correlation between the number of police on the street, the overall level of crime and particular types of crime. The hon. Lady has a treat in store because I am indeed going to turn to the crime figures fairly soon—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way once more, but as I have given way several times, I want to make some progress.

Mr. Linton: I thank the right hon. Lady for her courtesy. Does she agree that in the period that she chooses to cite—March 1993 to March 1997—the total number of police fell from 128,290 to 127,158? Who is spinning now?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman really is clutching at straws. He ignores the fact that the only reason my comments are based on those years is because they are a direct response to a comment from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who chose that particular period. Furthermore, police numbers rose by 16,000 during our time in office and, in the last year of that period—before we handed over to his incompetent lot—police numbers were rising.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Well, I should not give way because I said that I would not, but I will.

Mr. Howarth: I am conscious that my right hon. Friend is going to leave the question of recruitment, but before she does so, will she address the difficult situation that prevails in Hampshire? The chief constable points out that although the crimefighting fund has funded another 82 police officers, he cannot recruit them. He has to defer 62 appointments until next year. In his letter to Members of Parliament, he states:
I am not convinced that any realistic solution is in sight … The current shortfall in numbers is however placing unacceptable strains on my colleagues and is selling your constituents short.


That is what the Labour Government are doing to our police force in Hampshire.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I had intended to use that very quotation from the chief constable of Hampshire. It is crucial; it echoes statements made by the other chief constables whom I have quoted and by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It should give the Home Secretary pause for thought in the completely unrealistic complacency in which he appears to be wallowing.
The Home Secretary always produces figures that are either fiddled or muddled, such as the ethnic minority recruitment statistics. Last month, his Department trumpeted a rise of 218 officers in the Metropolitan police, but this month the statistics were "revised" to show an increase of just four. That completes the hat trick of muddled figures published by his Department—after the 248 Met officers seconded to central services in March, who were double-counted, and the 451 seconded to neighbouring forces, who were deducted twice from the overall total for September. Perhaps he would like me to give him an abacus for Christmas—then he might do better.
Even recent increases in recruitment do not appear to be solving the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) rightly says, the chief constable of Hampshire recently wrote to local MPs and council leaders, revealing that, by the end of this financial year, he expects to recruit 95 fewer officers than his target figure. That is not good news for the people of Hampshire, and if the situation is replicated in other forces it is even worse news for the rest of the country.
According to the Minister of State, Home Office, three forces—Hertfordshire, Essex and City of London—have so far failed to recruit a single person through the crimefighting fund, despite their combined allocation of 118 for this financial year. They have not found one recruit between them. In other areas, such as Gloucestershire and Doncaster, forces are unable to recruit to their target numbers because of a lack of training facilities.
This morning, the Yorkshire Post reported that West Yorkshire police are
to recruit teenage volunteers in the absence of money for more uniformed officers.
The Home Secretary is aware that I have been calling for a police cadet force for some time. However, there is a difference between recruiting young people to a cadet force to introduce them to the role that the police play in society—encouraging them to join the force later on—and recruiting such young people as an immediate replacement for regular beat officers. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on that announcement when he winds up the debate.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister of State, Home Office sent me a helpful written answer today, informing me that even with the crimefighting fund, by the end of the next financial year-2002–03there will be fewer police officers than there were at the end of March 1997.

Miss Widdecombe: One wonders how many more examples hon. Members will have to produce before the

Home Secretary will actually believe that he is presiding over one of the biggest crises in police recruitment and in police numbers that has ever been known.
As we know from the aftermath of the right hon. Gentleman's 1999 conference speech, overall police numbers are determined not only by recruitment, but by the number of officers who leave. Yesterday, we learned that the Metropolitan police had revised their projected wastage figures upwards by more than a quarter since April. At the halfway point in this financial year, other forces had lost far more officers than projected; for example, Bedfordshire's projected wastage for the whole year to March was 45, but by 30 September the force had already lost 37 officers. Perhaps the Minister of State will also comment on those figures.
The chairman of the Police Federation says that morale is now the worst that he has ever seen. In late 1999, a national survey of 6,000 serving officers showed that more than two thirds would leave the force if they were offered another job. In Suffolk, the recent Police Federation survey showed that half the officers felt morale was low—just one in 10 thought that it was high.
If the Home Secretary will not take the word of the Police Federation and that of thousands of serving police officers, perhaps he will take the word of his own deputy, the Minister of State. After I asked the Minister to make a statement about police morale, he told the House in a written answer on 11 December that the numbers leaving the police force were an indicator of morale, and then proceeded to reveal that voluntary resignations from the police had gone up by 60 per cent. under the Labour Government.
It is no wonder that police morale is so low, when they are completely hamstrung by new Labour bureaucracy—so much so that the chief constable of Lincolnshire says:
In my force best value bureaucracy is costing over £400,000 a year … and we are in danger of sinking under a sea of targets and measures.

Mr. Geraint Davies: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I want to make some progress and then I shall give way.
Chief Inspector Ray Shepherd of West Yorkshire police says:
Is Charles Clarke, the Home Office Minister, being fed so much nonsense that he isn't aware that police officers nowadays have far more paperwork to complete than ever before? … We could all make a list of the additional paperwork that creates a bureaucratic nightmare for officers who want to spend more time actually delivering the goods … The situation is far more frustrating nowadays than at any time in my 28 years' service. The public is getting a raw deal.
No wonder police morale is so low when officers see thousands of the criminals whom they have put so much effort into detaining, being given the "get out of jail free" card by the Home Secretary on his special early release scheme, and when they face the type of crisis that only the Prime Minister denies exists. No wonder morale is low when the Prime Minister's crony and confidant, Lord Falconer, condemns the police for being "riddled with racism".
No wonder morale is low when an article in this month's Police Federation magazine is entitled, "Behind Closed Doors: Federation Vice Chair Jan Berry sets out


the reasons for withdrawal from Home Office secret talks." So the Home Secretary has, after all, and contrary to what he told the House on 20 November 2000 about being "perfectly open", been holding secret talks about the "new agenda for reform" that the Prime Minister said last year risked
alienating the police at a crucial time.

Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that, far from those talks being secret, the Police Federation has been invited fully to participate in them?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and Jan Berry has withdrawn from what she describes as secret talks, so presumably the talks that she was invited to participate in were behind the closed doors of the Home Office. It is she who says that they were secret. it is she who believed that she was summoned in secret. Anyway, as a result of the article, they certainly are not secret now.
Where is the Government's support for the police when, under the Home Secretary' s own special early release policy, more than 200 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers have been released before serving even half their sentence? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the men and women of the police service, when prisoners released on his early release scheme have committed 25 further assaults on police officers when, but for his scheme, they would still have been in jail? It is yet another kick in the teeth for the police from the Government.
What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to the police officers who were the victims of those assaults? Will the right hon. Gentleman, even now, apologise to them, despite previous refusals to do so? Will he, even now, undertake to stop the release of these criminals, despite his previous refusals to do so? The Home Secretary's refusal to apologise and his voting record on that issue, which is plain for all to see, provides the clearest possible indicator of the worth of his promises to support the police.
Before I move on to the crime statistics, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is waiting for, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)—if he still wants to intervene. It seems that he does not.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that in the Met, reductions in sickness, which are an indication of morale, have led to an effective increase in the force of an extra 500 police? Is it not also the case that wastage rates, in terms of retirement and resignation, are half the average of those for civil servants? [Laughter.] It is no use laughing; those are facts.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman would have done better not to intervene, because we have demonstrated from the Government's own statistics, from the Home Office bulletin, not that there has been an effective increase in police but that there has been a massive decrease, not only in numbers but in effective policing, because of the amount of time that they have to spend in the police station instead of out on the beat.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady has made many criticisms with which, as she knows, I agree, but she made a commitment, and it is important that I ask her a question about it. The commitment was that a Tory Government would restore numbers to their level at the last general election—

Miss Widdecombe: At least that.

Mr. Hughes: They would restore numbers to at least that level, from which they have declined. Given that, under pressure, the Labour party has now committed itself to going above that figure in the next Parliament, what is the number of police officers to which the Tory party is now committed to go, and how much money has the Conservative shadow Chancellor allocated for that police number growth?

Miss Widdecombe: In response to the last question, I remind the hon. Gentleman—he was in the House at the time—of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that if Labour Members seriously expect that we will go into the election promising to cut their police budget, they must be crazy. Indeed, I think that there is some considerable evidence of craziness on the Labour Benches. If the Home Secretary can claim that the amount that he will spend will produce, in the end, jam tomorrow—more than the numbers that we left behind—why is it so impossible for us to be able to fund at least the numbers that he left behind? The difference is that we will do it and he will talk about it.
Is it any coincidence that the latest crime statistics show assaults on police up by 12 per cent., when the criminal knows that if he hits a policeman or policewoman, and gets a maximum sentence of six months, he will be given the "get out of jail free" card by the Home Secretary in six weeks?
Just after the last general election, the Home Secretary told the Police Federation:
The police constable is central to the success of our police service. In difficult, demanding and often dangerous circumstances, the constable is the physical presence of the law on our streets … the visible presence of the police on our streets is a traditional strength of British policing which is more … important in today's environment.
Since the right hon. Gentleman uttered those words, there has been a decline of more than 1,900 in the number of police constables. It has happened on his watch. The chief constable of Hampshire, whom I mentioned, and whom my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) mentioned, has written:
The current shortfall in numbers is … placing unacceptable strains on my colleagues and is selling your constituents short.
For "constituents", read "the British public as a whole".

Maria Eagle: Will the right hon, Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No.
Let the Home Secretary think on this:
The reason why violent crime has risen by 8 per cent, violence against the person has
risen
By 7 per cent and robberies have


risen—incredibly—by
21 per cent is because there is an acute shortage of frontline officers. The visible presence, and consequential deterrent, of police patrolling our neighbourhoods is falling at the same time as street crime is rising.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for Garston invited me to address the crime statistics. I am now addressing them, and if Labour Members do not like what they are hearing, all they need to do is to look at the Home Secretary's own figures to understand what has happened to crime under the present Government. We left him crime rates that, in the last four years of our term of office, had fallen by nearly 18 per cent., and all that he can do is rejoice at a miserable fall of 0.2 per cent. in the latest statistics.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: The fact is, the Home Secretary is failing. It is the view of the chairman of the Police Federation that crime is rising at the same time as police numbers are falling. Last year, he talked about disorder and anarchy on our streets, and the statistics have proved him right. He said:
We are concerned about the sharp rise in street crime. An increase in a uniformed presence on our streets will help tackle that issue.
So the Home Secretary's words in 1997 were right—the visible presence of the police on our streets and in our communities is absolutely essential.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: As the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation has observed:
You've got to have feet on the beat to put hands on collars.
But there has been a drop of 2,500 in the number of regulars and 1,900 in the number of constables. There are fewer feet on the beat. Robberies are up; violence is up; there is more violent crime, less safety and less confidence on our streets.
There is a crisis today. There is a crisis of violent crime. There is a crisis of public confidence in the criminal justice system. There is certainly a crisis of confidence in the Home Secretary and in his Prime Minister. They promised to be tough on crime. Instead, all they have done is to be tough on crimefighters—all spin and no delivery.
In perhaps a few weeks or a few months—or, if they lose heart, rather longer than that—the Prime Minister will go to the country, and this country will give its judgment on the Government's record of shame. I commend the motion to the House.

5 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes that the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by 1,476 between 1993 and 1997–98 under budgets set by the previous administration, whilst the strength of the Metropolitan

Police Service was allowed to fall by 1,773 between 1993 and 1997–98; notes too that morale of the service was badly damaged by the 1993 Sheehy Report, and recruitment made difficult especially in London and the South East by the abolition in 1994 of the housing allowance for officers; welcomes the establishment of the crime fighting fund to bring officer numbers to record levels by 2003–04, the recent rise in police numbers, the 74 per cent. increase in the numbers of recruits entering training in the first nine months of this financial year compared to the same period last year, the 1,000 increase in civilian staff since March 1997, and the very substantial rise in police funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review 2000; and congratulates the police service on securing a 7 per cent reduction in recorded crime since March 1997.
I am delighted that we are debating this issue today. Policing is a crucial issue, in which all hon. Members have a keen interest However, there is another reason why I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miis Widdecombe) for arranging the debate: it gives us an opportunity, yet again, to remind ourselves—but, more importantly, the public—that the Conservative party's promises today on the police are as worthless as all those that it made in 1992 and 1997, which led to the current, very sorry state of a once great party. [Interruption.] As with spending on hospitals, schools and transport, the Conservative party promised one thing on the police, but delivered another. We are providing investment, but the Conservatives could only deliver cuts. That is the inevitable consequence of the fiscal policy to which they are now irrevocably committed.
When the right hon. Lady was producing her confetti of promises on police spending, I intervened to ask whether she agreed with the shadow Chancellor's commitment to keep public spending at 2.2 per cent a year in the event of a Conservative Government. As the House heard, she refused to answer in the affirmative and evaded the question, as she does so often, saying that it involved a misquotation. Let me remind her of the exact quotation; I want to know whether she agrees with what the shadow Chancellor not only said, but has committed his party to. Last December, he repeatedly said that the Chancellor was planning to increase total Government spending by around 3.4 per cent. a year over the next three years, even though he assumed that the economy would only grow at around 2.25 per cent. I gave the same figure. He also repeatedly said that the next Conservative Government would plot a course towards real Annual increases in spending, which are within the trend rate of growth of the economy-2.25 per cent. So there was no misquotation. I give the right hon. Lady every opportunity to intervene and tell me whether she agrees with that decision, made by the shadow Chancellor on behalf of the rest of the shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am happy to give way to the monkey rather than to the organ grinder.

Mr. Leigh: This is all very interesting, but the Home Secretary may have forgotten that he is in charge at the moment, so may I ask him to cast his eyes away from the enjoyable pastures of party political rhetoric for a moment and talk about some real issues? Will he comment on the


interesting initiative of the chief constable of Humberside, who insists that a larger proportion of his officers, even senior officers, go out on the beat, which is making a real difference to crimefighting statistics in Humberside, given that many chief constables are apparently resisting such moves—for example, the chief constable of Lincolnshire?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, and I take back my remark. I commend him on that intelligent contribution—if I may say so without condescension. I hope that that does not destroy an otherwise great career. That initiative is exactly what we have been seeking to achieve.
We have been seeking to achieve better use of the police service's resources. Yes, of course, we want overall numbers of police to increase, but there is not necessarily a connection between overall numbers and crime. If there had been, crime would have decreased, rather than doubled, during the 1980s. Of course, the key issue is how those resources are used, and we have dealt with that. I shall refer to that later. Some chief constables use their resources with better results than others.

Miss Widdecombe: To answer the question that the Home Secretary asked before he was so incredibly abusive to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I agree, as every sensible person does, that Governments should spend what they actually have. Of course, we agree with that.

Mr. Straw: What about the shadow Chancellor?

Miss Widdecombe: Well yes, the shadow Chancellor.
The Home Secretary spends too much time wasting money on bureaucracy. I quoted a chief constable who said that one force spent £400,000 on Labour party bureaucracy alone. If the right hon. Gentleman did not waste money, he could spend more of it where it should be spent.

Mr. Straw: I do not call that a wholehearted endorsement of the shadow Chancellor's words. Indeed, the right hon. Lady can scarcely get his name across her lips. Only when I prompted her, did she dare mention his name. What she has just said is very different from the shadow Chancellor's categoric undertaking that spending would be kept to 2.2 per cent. One of many reasons why, whenever the election comes, there will be no vote of confidence in the Conservative party is that its promises on spending simply do not add up with its promises on taxation and overall spending.

Miss Widdecombe: How does the Home Secretary square his promises with what he has delivered? He promised more police—first, 5,000; then 9,000—but all we have seen since is a fall in the number of police. He promised to be tough on crime, but he is letting people out of prison early. He has done nothing for victims in this country. The general public will not believe his promises. If he doubts that, let him go out and ask them. They are fed up with the Government's failure on the police.

Mr. Straw: Well—

Miss Widdecombe: Answer.

Mr. Straw: I am going to answer. It is always my pleasure to answer the right hon. Lady's questions. I was

inextricably caught up by promises, all of which could not be delivered together, made by the Labour party in the 1980s, so I understand her predicament. However, in the 1980s, the electorate rightly punished us because we were insinuating one thing, while knowing that we could not deliver it. That is exactly the bind that the right hon. Lady has got into with her shadow Cabinet. She and almost all—I exempt one or two—Conservative Members complain about spending and ask for more, more, more. Yet she now accepts that the shadow Chancellor has committed the Conservative party not to more, more, more, but to less, less, less. That is why she is not believed today, and she will not be believed at the general election.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I want to make progress, and then, of course, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do.
At the previous election, we did not promise to increase the total number of police officers, because we were aware that the money would not be there for reasons that I shall explain later. We were also aware that the Conservative party had promised an extra 1,000 officers in the 1992 election, whereas, as we all know, numbers declined during the following five years.
The House needs to examine the Conservative party's recent history on policing. That would be illuminating because that history is the best yardstick of its commitment to the police service and is essential in understanding some of the problems that the service faces today. About the time that the right hon. Lady joined the ministerial ranks of the previous Government in 1990, her then colleagues in the Home Office and Treasury were secretly sharpening their knives for use against the police service.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I wish to complete this point before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Numbers rose in the 1980s as, indeed, they did under Labour in the 1970s. However, in an illuminating comment in his autobiography, Kenneth Baker, writing of his time as Home Secretary, let slip what was going on, which was secret at the time. He said:
I found that while several of my ministerial colleagues and Tory MPs supported the police in public, they were highly critical of them in private. There was impatience, if not anger, that although we had spent 87 per cent. more in real terms … and had increased police numbers, there had still been a substantial rise in crime. "Where is the value for money?" asked my colleagues. I had even heard Margaret Thatcher criticise the management and leadership of the police.
Once the 1992 election was out of the way, the Conservative Government got to work. They still mouthed the "more bobbies on the beat" line in public, but their intent was very different. They appointed Sir Patrick Sheehy, chairman of British American Tobacco, to mount an inquiry into the police service. His report whipped the police into a sense of collective anger not witnessed since their strikes in 1918 and 1919. The right hon. Lady may today talk about low morale, but she has an extraordinarily short memory.
The Police Federation recently commented on morale—that topic is its hardy annual—but those remarks are as nothing to the anger that the federation voiced under the Conservatives. The anger was so intense that thousands of police officers attended a protest rally against the Conservative Government at Wembley arena to protest against the Sheehy agenda. Such a protest had not happened before and has not happened since.
The legacy of the decisions taken at that time remains with us today. Investment was cut, recruitment scaled down and incentives to join the service were removed.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: On the subject of investment in the police force, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the £1 million that he announced yesterday as extra funding for the Cambridgeshire police force? Will he commend that force for achieving a 2.9 per cent. reduction in recorded crime since the election, despite its considerable difficulties in policing the protests against Huntingdon Life Sciences?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I do, indeed, commend the Cambridgeshire constabulary and its chief constable, Ben Gunn, for their efforts. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I greatly regret that it has been necessary to allocate £1 million to that force to deal with the outrageous intimidatory and, in some cases, violent attacks that have been made by so-called animal rights protesters against the perfectly lawful and important activities of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Given the pressures on the police in Cambridgeshire, I think that their record is very good, and I look forward to it improving. I hope that the money makes a difference.

Mr. Howarth: I wanted to raise another matter, but as the Home Secretary has mentioned the appalling sabotage in the campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, can he say why he and the authorities do not use the conspiracy laws to tackle the people who plan such attacks? I am not talking merely of the people who are engaged in the actual sabotage, but of those who plan it, because such activities are taking place across the country. As I recall, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 was introduced for protection against watching and besetting. If it is not still on the statute book, the Home Secretary might think about bringing it back.

Mr. Straw: The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are determined to use all the powers and charges that are available to ensure that such outrageous activities are deterred and effectively addressed. If there is evidence that would add up to a conspiracy charge, such a charge would be laid. I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), the right hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in whose constituency Huntingdon Life Sciences lies, and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), in whose constituency many of the people who work at HLS live, about whether we could strengthen the powers that are available. I made it clear yesterday that I was considering that and I intend to consult other parties on whether those could be included in a Bill that is being published tomorrow. I hope to be able to proceed on an agreed basis.
Some thoroughly misguided people might believe that although the methods of the violent, disruptive and intimidatory protesters are wrong, their ends are acceptable. That is wholly erroneous. None of us likes the idea of testing on animals, and successive Governments have sought to reduce unnecessary testing, for example, on cosmetics. However, we all have to accept that if we wish to see improvements in drug therapy and other advances in medical science, we need to ensure that the drugs or procedures are safe, which means that some have to be tested on animals.
The lives of millions of people around the world have been lengthened and their health has been significantly improved as a result of drug therapy that depends on animal research. It is for that reason and because of the huge issue of public order that we must support the staff at Huntingdon Life Sciences and other people, including many distinguished academics, who have been the subjects of the most outrageous intimidation in recent years.

Mr. Heald: I preface my remarks by saying that those on the Opposition Front Bench of course endorse the Home Secretary's approach to Huntingdon Life Sciences. What is going on is completely unacceptable and must be stopped.
The Home Secretary said that he had not promised in the general election campaign to get more officers back on the beat, but in the manifesto, he said:
We will … get more officers back on the beat.
If he is denying that, can he give one example in that general election campaign of when he said what was actually going to happen? When did he say that he was going to slash police numbers, both of regular officers and specials? Did he say that once?

Mr. Straw: In the manifesto, we criticised the Conservatives for breaking their 1992 general election pledge to provide an extra 1,000 police officers. I made no promise about the direction that officer numbers might take. I said that we would relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat, and that is exactly what we have done. By doing that, by introducing the Narey reforms—albeit endorsed by the previous Administration—by cutting the number of forms that are necessary for prosecutions by a third, by tackling issues such as sickness, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends, and by ensuring that there is a greater degree of efficiency, to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred, and that chief constables and forces have to apply themselves to those matters, we have got more operational officers back on the beat.
Let me give one example. When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was involved with what is now called the Police Authority for the Metropolis, everyone knew that the administration of that great police force was top heavy. Its headquarters were in Scotland Yard, but its bureaucratic work was replicated in five separate areas. With my full support, one of the many changes that the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis introduced was to cut out that layer of bureaucracy. That alone has led to more than 120 officers going back on the beat.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sir David Phillips and


the Kent police on achieving a 23 per cent. reduction in recorded crime since the last general election? That is largely due to improved police efficiency. Does he agree that the only real way to make a big difference to public services is to invest in them, unlike the Conservatives who want to cut them?

Mr. Straw: I most certainly do congratulate Sir David Phillips and his force. Although his resources are tight—they have been since 1993, but they are now improving—he has shown that he has been able broadly to maintain police numbers in Kent. They have decline d by 21 out of a total force of 3,239. I regret that decline, but it is very small and the number will now rise. Sir David has also shown that, because of the methods that he has used, he has been able to target particularly prolific and persistent offenders. As a result, he has the best crime record in the south-east and one of the best crime records in the country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the matter of efficiency and resources, has the Home Secretary made progress on the conundrum that has been wrestled with by his Department? How does one reward a police force's efficiency? If a police force does very well, it is recognised as doing very well—Kent may be an example—and crime figures come down, there is no natural correlation at all at the moment between its record and the resources that it receives. Indeed, it is likely to receive fewer resources because there is apparently less crime. That is not an incentive to the police to do well. What is the answer to the question of how police forces are rewarded for good policing?

Mr. Straw: At any time, the system of grant for distributing money to police forces needs to be improved; it is not a perfect science and it cannot be. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the drive for efficiency is important and that forces that are successful should not be penalised for their success. This is a particularly important issue for the police service, because if a force were absolutely efficient, there would be no crime. The police service is different from any other service, because it is working to a negative—a reduction in the number of offences. Other public services—for example, in education—work to a positive, such as the raising of standards.
We have to take account of that point and we seek to do so. For example in the case of rural policing, the £30 million that we have allocated to rural forces per year is not remotely based on crime levels; it is based on sparsity and that is as it should be. We also have a whole range of special programmes under the reducing crime initiative to target help to forces that need it and that can show improvements. However, if suggestions are made about how things can be improved, we are of course available to accept them.

Mr. John Bercow: How is the morale of the police force improved by the early release, over the past two years, of no fewer than 218 people who were imprisoned for assaulting police officers? While the Home Secretary attempts to answer that, will he also explain how respect for the law is increased by the release, under the home detention curfew scheme, of people who have

escaped lawful custody, been recaptured and imprisoned but who are then given the sweet of being let out of jail early?

Mr. Straw: The sentences that prisoners receive are a matter for the courts. When they impose a sentence, they take full account of the release arrangements. Since 1997–98, those arrangements include the possibility, where there is a risk assessment, of a home detention curfew. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that, when the home detention curfew scheme was included in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it was endorsed by a unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1997–98. One of the Committee's members—he has just left the Front Bench—is an Opposition spokesman on home affairs, none other than the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
I have taken a number of interventions and I want to return to the issue of police service funding. It is important to reflect for a moment on what happened in the mid-1990s. Many of the problems with which I have had to deal—I take responsibility for what has happened since 1997—have their roots in that period. There was sustained under-investment in the police service, and spending rose by only 0.5 per cent. in real terms in the last three years of the Conservative Administration and their Budgets. The housing allowance was removed from all new recruits. Of course, the service could recruit at almost any level when there was a recession but, as particularly London and the south-east came out of recession and employment prospects improved, the removal of the allowance made it particularly difficult to recruit officers in London and the south-east. Central controls over police numbers were also removed.
The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 explicitly removed the power of Ministers to set the numbers of officers in post. On the Bill's Second Reading, the former boss of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, could barely wait to be rid of that responsibility. Standing at this Dispatch Box, he said:
In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision, not for the Home Secretary.
To reinforce the point, and in a phrase typifying his overall approach to his office, he added:
It is not a matter for me.—[Official Report, 26 April 1994: Vol. 242, c. 113.]
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Conservatives were up to in implementing their agenda set by Sheehy, we can examine the 1994 Conservative research guide. It criticised the old system under which establishments were set by the Home Secretary and praised the new system in which numbers would be a matter for chief constables. It said that the old system provided
perverse incentives to recruit police officers instead of civilians.
There we have it. The removal of those
perverse incentives to recruit police officers
had the effect that Conservative Ministers privately intended. Police numbers went down. They started falling in 1993 and, under the Conservative's published spending plans, they were bound to go on falling.
We have been in government since May 1997 and we accept our responsibility, but the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald cannot evade her responsibility.

Mr. Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I may give way shortly.
The right hon. Lady cannot evade responsibility for her own part in what happened. As a Minister in the Home Office, she came to the House in January 1997 to recommend a financial settlement to the police that could provide only a reduction in the number of officers. Yet she boasted of the then Prime Minister's commitment
to provide funding for an additional 5,000 police officers over three years.—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 457.]
That funding came into effect a few weeks before the previous general election and was for the 1997–98 financial year. As a result, under that budget and the previous four, numbers fell by 1,500 across the country and by 1,800 in the Metropolitan police.
Faced with the hard truth that police numbers were declining and would have carried on declining—as I shall show in a second—what does the right hon. Lady say? She comes up with an explanation that is so crass that it either raises questions about her intellect that I do not accept or suggests—this was well illustrated earlier—that she has decided to resort to waffle and bluff as a smokescreen to cover the manacles that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has attached to her on police spending.
The right hon. Lady has said:
If the Home Office could afford almost 3,000 more police officers when you came to power—and did so on a smaller budget—where has all the money gone?
That question was returned to her by an incredulous Jim Naughtie, who asked her where she thought all the money had gone, and she said that we were wasting it on bureaucracy, we were wasting it on press officers and we were wasting it on advertising.
We are not wasting the money on bureaucracy because overall staffing at the Home Office has gone down. Our advertising spending is on police recruitment, which I happen to think is quite important. The right hon. Lady chose to refer to press officers, but the number of press officers in the Home Office—I have already admitted to this in parliamentary answers; it is not a secret—has risen. It has risen from 19 to 27; the number has risen by eight. However, she seems to think that, for the audience in the House and across the country, going on about an increase of eight in the number of press officers is somehow an answer to where the money will come from to pay millions and billions of pounds for promises that she could never keep.

Miss Widdecombe: Why does the Home Secretary not actually say what I said? I did not confine my remarks just to the Home Office. I talked about this Government and the increase of £2 billion on Whitehall bureaucracy and today I have quoted a figure of getting on for £500,000 for bureaucracy alone in just one force. If he is seriously saying that there are no savings to be found from bureaucracy, his intellect is in question.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady chose to talk about advertising, which is being spent on police recruitment. She also talked about bureaucracy, but we have yet to see what she is talking about. It is easy to talk about £2 billion for bureaucrats but, in the Home Office, she is talking

about people in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, people running the crime reduction programme and the civilians whose numbers have increased by 1,000 since the general election to release more police officers for front-line duties. That is what she is talking about. She chose to talk about press officers in the same breath as those other matters.
There is an answer to the right hon. Lady's question. There is a reason why police numbers have fallen even though budgets have risen under this Government. It is partly because chief officers have used the powers that they were given by the previous Administration to switch resources to civilian staff and new equipment, and partly because of the rising costs of police pay, especially pensions. Pension costs have risen from 9.1 per cent. of police spending in 1995–96 to 12 per cent. in 1999–2000.
The projections given in the last public spending plans published by the Conservative Government in March 1997 give the lie to the right hon. Lady's promises and her claim in January 1997 that there would be an extra 5,000 officers. I remember that I was sitting on the Opposition Benches when she said that. Those plans spoke grandly of an increase of 5,000 police officers.
Let me tell the right hon. Lady, because I am sure that she has forgotten, what was to happen under the Conservatives' plans to the money to pay for those officers. In 1996–97, there was to be £3,462 million of central Government support for the police service. By 1999–2000, when the number of police officers was to have risen by 4,000. from 127,901 to 131,901, spending on the police service would not have risen to pay for those extra officers, but would have fallen to £3,453 million. Those were the Conservatives' spending plans. They knew as they were making their claims that they were planning not to increase spending on police numbers, but to cut it. That was why they were not believed at the previous general election and it is why they will never be believed again.
By contrast with the Conservatives' record, we are turning round the decline in police numbers which has occurred since 1993 The right hon. Lady has asked me what happened to my promise at the Labour party conference in October 1999 to increase the number of recruits first by 5,000 over the number that was planned and then, following the allocation of additional money, by 9,000. The answer, as I made clear at the time, is that the money became available last March. The figures that we published earlier this week show that the money kicked in straight away, and the number of recruits rose by almost 500 between March, when the money was first paid, and September. The numbers are rising again, and recruiting centres have 75 per cent. more recruits than ever before.
We have also dealt with the problem of recruitment in London by increasing by £3,300 the pay of London officers who were recruited after 1994. Yesterday, I announced that there would be free rail travel for all Metropolitan police officers within a 70-mile radius of London. That has been hugely welcomed by the Metropolitan police service.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) looking at me quizzically, so I shall turn now to home counties forces. In the police negotiating board, we have made an offer to increase by £2,000 the


pay of home counties officers within a 30-mile radius of London and by £1,000 the pay of those within a 40-mile radius. We believe that to be a generous offer, although we are of course open to other suggestions. We want the Police Federation and others to agree to that offer. All I can say is that if I were an officer in the Thames Valley or Hampshire, I would rather have £1,000 or £2,000 than deadlock in the police negotiating board.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I intend to make a speech later, if there is time, but I have a question on that point. Does the Home Secretary's concession relate also to the housing problems facing police officers in the areas surrounding the Metropolitan police?

Mr. Straw: The areas with the most serious recruitment problems are in central London, and we are dealing with those effectively. We are trying to deal with other areas with less serious problems. Some time ago I made it clear to chief constables and to hon. Members of all parties that we were open to suggestions about what needed to be done, and we have come up with proposals that we think will help.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I need to make progress.
We have encouraged the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to modernise recruitment processes. Another problem for the Met was that the force was taking nine months to process application forms; the Commissioner has brought that down to three months. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition dismissing the huge increase in recruitment. The previous Government reduced total numbers in the Metropolitan police by almost 2,000, and at long last, after 10 years, the numbers are rising. However, the Leader of the Opposition has insinuated that because the Met has changed some of the restrictions on recruitment, the only people being recruited are those who would previously have failed the tests.
I can tell Conservative Members that the basic regulations on police recruitment and Home Office guidance have not changed. Only two things have changed. First, the Met has brought itself into line with other forces on the question of criminal convictions, so a minor criminal conviction is no longer an absolute bar to recruitment, nor should it be. Of coarse a conviction that goes to character should be a bar, and it remains so.
The second change demonstrates that the Leader of the Opposition is, as ever, ill-briefed. The Commissioner has abolished a series of archaic, simply inexplicable restrictions on recruitment. All tattoos, anywhere on the body, even those relating to a lady to whom one was still married, were a complete bar to recruitment. There was an absolute restriction on recruiting people with varicose veins, receding gums or too many crowns in their teeth.
Irritable bowel syndrome, even if cured, was a total bar to recruitment if disclosed beforehand, even though it was not a condition for compulsory resignation for serving officers. I looked down that list of restrictions; they were bonkers and needed to be removed. I commend the Commissioner for doing so. It is fortunate that there are no such restrictions on entry to the House, or we would have fewer than 60 Members, not more than 600.
I am the first to acknowledge that, other things being equal, police effectiveness is improved by more police officers, backed by good equipment. However, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made clear, effectiveness is about much more than head counting. That is why our investment in the police is directed at technology. We are providing £143 million to expand the DNA database. A further £500 million is being invested to establish a new national digital radio system. We are putting additional money into the police force at every level. There will be a 7 per cent. increase in real terms in funding for the police service next year, and a 3.5 per cent. increase over the three years of the settlement, compared with a measly 0.5 per cent. in real terms in the last few years of the previous Administration.
We are dealing with some of the inherent inefficiencies in the service. It was completely unacceptable that 77 per cent. of all officers in Merseyside retired early through alleged sickness. We have reduced that number throughout the country. The Opposition motion mentions wastage. Overall, that has come down. We must consider the number of resignations along with the number of those retiring. As long as early retirement on medical grounds was available as a route out of the service, people would of course seek to take that route rather than resigning because they got more money. Now that the route has been closed off, there has been a increase in the number of resignations. It is tiny compared with the total, but the total of retirements and resignations, far from going up, has gone down from 5.1 per cent. to 4.7 per cent. in the past four years. That is the lowest figure for years. That is a good indicator of morale. It is not true that there is flight from the service. Apart from London, where there have been recruitment problems, that is palpably true. Sickness rates have also been tackled.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: Yes. This will be the last intervention.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend is right to identify London as being different from elsewhere. However, there are some places close to London that share London's problems, one of which is Slough. I am meeting my local police federation to ask the National Police Federation to stop standing in the way of extra money for Slough. Will my right hon. Friend perhaps include Slough's part of the Thames valley in some of the initiatives that he is taking to improve recruitment in the Metropolitan area?

Mr. Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for the assiduous way in which she has spoken up for Slough. I recognise, as I have done in respect of other matters, that in practical terms Slough often has to face the same cost levels as greater London, but in administrative terms, it is outside London. That is why we have made the proposals that I have described. If my hon. Friend has other proposals to make to us, we shall consider them sympathetically. Across the Thames valley, since the general election, police numbers have increased by 53. We have provided the money to Charles Pollard and his force considerably to increase numbers again.
We are making other changes. Crime doubled during the period of office of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but the number of people


prosecuted fell by a third. That was because of the catastrophic way in which the previous Administration reorganised the Crown Prosecution Service. When she was a Minister in the Home Office, there was a failure to do anything about the CPS's funding.
We are increasing the CPS's resources by almost a quarter in real terms next year so that at long last it has the capacity to prosecute people who have been charged by the police. We have made many other changes.
The right hon. Lady talks selectively about the previous Administration's record. She says that crime came down from 1993. If she wants to be judged, she must be judged on the complete record of the Conservative Administration. Everybody knows that it is indelibly fixed in the mind of every elector that crime doubled under the Conservatives. The marginal decline that took place in the last two or three years of their Administration did nothing to take away the pain of seeing crime doubling during the previous 15 years.
I am not in the least complacent about crime. Crime, not least because of the record of the previous Administration, is still far too high. However, crime is down under the Labour Administration. We have the best record of any incoming Administration for 50 years. Our record compares with the 20 per cent. increase that occurred under Margaret Thatcher, and the 40 per cent. increase—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) must desist from sedentary interjections.

Mr. Straw: I am not surprised—

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Yes.

Miss Widdecombe: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the record of the immediately previous Administration was a fall in crime of nearly 18 per cent? His record has squandered that achievement. First, the falls slowed down, and now they have declined to 0.2 per cent. Will he admit that the record of the immediate previous Administration was twice as good as his?

Mr. Straw: No. We are not judged by what happens in a month or during years which happen to be picked. I am astonished that the right hon. Lady has not worked out the fact that at the general election people were judging the stewardship of the Conservative Government. They were not selecting the odd arbitrary year. They were considering the 18 years of Conservative Government and recognising the abject failure of that Administration. They failed to make the police more efficient and they failed to tackle crime and disorder. There was the abject failure to do anything—

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be interested to know that unfortunately the right hon. Member for Maidstone and

The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did not tell me when she visited my constituency recently. Otherwise, I would have taken her to see the exciting results from the community safety partnership. It was actively supported by the Labour council, but it is under a great deal of threat from the current Tory council. When my right hon. Friend visits Plymouth, will he come with me to visit people in the partnership, who among other things have achieved a 50 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime? In the six months from April to October they have achieved a 10 per cent. reduction in violent crime.

Mr. Straw: Yes. I commend the Devon and Cornwall constabulary on its achievements. One reason why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald would not have spoken to my hon. Friend is that since the general election, not only in the past six months, police numbers in Devon and Cornwall have risen, not fallen.
At the last election, people judged the previous Administration on its record. Over 18 years, crime had doubled while the number of people convicted fell by a third. That Government were planning cuts in real spending on the police service. Had the Conservatives returned to office and their plans been implemented, police numbers would not have risen by 5,000 as they were dishonestly promising. Far from falling by 2,500, they would have fallen by 4,000 more.
Our record is the best of any incoming Administration for 50 years. Crime has fallen by 7 per cent. since the general election. According to the British crime survey, it has fallen by 10 per cent. We are investing in the police service. By contrast, all that the Conservatives would do, as we heard at the beginning of the right hon. Lady's speech, would be to make promises to spend. In reality, they would cut. It is the Government and the Government's programme that are on course to make the country safer, and the Conservative party would significantly damage that prospect. As before, it would ensure that crime increased.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Earlier this afternoon, with the Minister of State, Home Office and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), I attended the funeral of Damilola Taylor. As the House would expect, it was an incredibly moving event. Damilola Taylor was killed in the borough which in part I represent, although just outside my constituency. In his personal tribute, the pastor of the church which the Taylors had attended throughout his time here—that incredibly impressive family of faith and dignity—asked this question: what changes do we have to make to the morals and values of our society, so that little boys like Damilola do not get taken to their death at the age of 10, on their way home from school or from the library?
I start with that because, as the Home Secretary suggested earlier, a debate about the police is only one part of a jigsaw of responses that society tries to put together to create a better society. Self-evidently, if we had a crime-free society, we would not need a significant police force. The debate today is taking place because, sadly, we have far too much crime. Violent crime is on the increase, and many of our fellow citizens—people whom we represent throughout England and Wales for the purpose of this debarte—feel that matters are getting out of control.
I agree with the Home Secretary that the purpose of public policy on law and order should be to reduce crime significantly, so that police numbers can come down. As a society, we should not want ever-bigger police forces all round the country. We should be moving in the other direction. The basis of our society should be mutual respect, so that people do not attack other citizens in the street and take out their own prejudices on others.
I shall add one more comment about my experience this afternoon. As I walked away from the church in Shooters hill, a woman came up to me with a woman friend of hers. She was the mother of a 19-year-old who had been killed some months ago by a 16-year-old. She was a white woman, with her white friend. Having gone through a similar bereavement just months ago, she had come to show solidarity with a black family mourning the death of their young son. It is the example of those two women, those two families, and those two expressions of courage, that we should encourage.
Our debate, especially in the run-up to a general election, should rightfully challenge the Government's record on the police. Leading for an Opposition party, I shall also test and question the Government and seek to expose the areas in which they have failed. However, I hope that we will be united in our objective to do everything possible to encourage the good examples, the law abiding, and the morals and values of society that the pastor mentioned, so that we do not witness the social failure so often exemplified in crime
That wider debate is not principally about police; it is about family life, community life, a decent education service, and a responsible media that do not portray images of violence all the time—violence on television, violence on film, violence in computer games and violence on pitches in games that many young people watch. It is also about a criminal justice system and a prison system that work to ensure that when people go inside they are punished, but come out less likely to offend.
Another part of the jigsaw is the Prison Service, which is still often ineffective at rehabilitating people. Half of all those who go to prison reoffend within two years of coming out. It is no good thinking that the burden of dealing with crime is entirely that of the police.

Mr. Steve McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the Government's joint probation and prison accreditation panel, which is designed to strengthen and accredit programmes to deal with offending behaviour?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I do. It is important that we improve the quality and effectiveness of the Prison Service, the probation and social services and all the other agencies. The youth offender regime that the Government have introduced is a good one. There are many good initiatives designed to make sure that the pattern of criminality among youngsters is arrested.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with interest and respect. In the light of what he said about the need to reform prisoners so that when they go out into community they lead constructive lives, will he join me in regretting the fact that there has been a serious decline in the level of

purposeful activity in prisons over the past couple of years? In particular, will he join the Conservative Opposition in calling for prisoners to undertake a full, normal working day during their incarceration?

Mr. Hughes: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who looks after prison matters in our party, a concern about the reduction in profitable activity. I can also tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that, like his party, we have a policy commitment that there should be a full working week regime in prison—working or education or training, except for those who are unable on health grounds to fulfil that.
I was extremely frustrated to discover, when I visited Leeds prison last year, that the opportunity for work existed, but the prison regime insisted that prisoners spend two hours in cells in the middle of the day instead of being in the gym or the workshop or somewhere where they could train. We must get away from that old-fashioned regime. The new governor, to her credit, wanted to do that in Leeds, as do many other senior managers in the Prison Service.
The last obvious point that falls to be made at the beginning of a general debate about police numbers, which has also been a debate about crime figures, must, I hope, be an honest admission by all of us that there is no direct link between police numbers and crime figures. Of course, the more police that there are, providing that they do their job properly, the more effective they are likely to be in deterring and detecting crime. No one has ever argued to me that fewer police make that more likely. Reductions in police numbers reduce the chance of deterring and detecting crime, but there is no simple link between the one and the other.
I concede that, there having been huge increases in crime during the first three Tory Administrations, there was then a reduction during the last Tory Administration in all but one year, and, since then, crime figures have gone up and down. Violent crime went up all the time under the Tories and has gone up and down under the Labour Government, and it is sadly going up again now. Therefore, I hope that we all realise that it is difficult to establish the link between policing and crime, and that it is simplistic to think that crime figures are significantly and hugely affected by policing when so many other factors are at play in society.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I declare an interest, in that my wife is a prospective member of the probation board. Does my hon. Friend accept that resources put into the probation service and reoffending are much more closely identified?

Mr. Hughes: That certainly appears to be the case. Because many more people are treated outside prison, even though they may have offended, logically, resources—as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and others know from their constituencies—are better directed to all the people outside. If people outside were treated more effectively, we would not be worried about so many people being


inside. Liberal Democrats take the view that we are sending far too many people to prison, which is expensive and often cost-inefficient in terms of reducing crime.

Dr. Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful if he allowed me to continue as this is an Opposition day and Conservative Members must be allowed the majority of Opposition time.
I share the respect for the police and I understand their sense of pressure. They have many new pressures now which they never had before, such as the internationalisation of crime, making their work much more complex than before. Many more people move around and communities are less settled. There is much more pressure on society, so people suffer more mental illness and strain and criminal tendencies are as a result more likely. Technology is much more complicated, and the police are expected to deal with that when used by criminals and to use it themselves. There are more diverse communities with many more languages, cultures and traditions. There is much more legislation, and that places a huge burden on the police, resulting in much more paperwork than they have ever had before, which has a huge implication for the police. There are fewer civilians to pick up the pieces and do the work which need not be done by people in uniform at all.
Special constables tell me that there are fewer of them principally because fewer people volunteer, owing to their other commitments at work and home. Numbers have dropped significantly because people are unwilling and unable to make the commitment, often because their work pressure is too great. The reality is that the police are under the same pressures as all the other areas of public life, and our job is to respond appropriately.
Sadly, the Government have not helped. They have done many good things, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that I will acknowledge publicly when the Government get something right, but be strong, with my colleagues, when they get it wrong. During the previous Parliament, Labour Members were critical of the Tory party's record on these matters and made all sorts of commitments. Their two great commitments were to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and to cut by half the period taken to deal with regular young offenders from arrest to sentence. If the election is this year, it does not look as though the second commitment will be met. I do not say that, if the Parliament lasted for five years, it would not be met, but it does not look as though it will be. In addition, the perception of the public and the police is that the Government have also failed to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and that after four years it is a bit late to start to remedy that.
The recently published Audit Commission report confirmed that the Government's further manifesto pledge, to put more bobbies on the beat, has also not been realised. The number of police officers per person has gone down, not up. Those are not my figures or Liberal Democrat figures, but figures from the Audit Commission, which is respected as independent.
For many, there is a sad conclusion to draw. This past week, the BBC news website carried the headline, "Public losing confidence in police". Even worse is the fact that

many police officers are losing confidence in the police. Our duty is to deal with both matters: the public need to have confidence in the police again but, above all, the police need to have confidence in the police again.
May I now make n my substantive, principal and, I hope, portmanteau criticism of the Home Office? I do not understand why the Home Office and the Government made one fundamental mistake above all else. When all the evidence points towards a need to do something, when the public say that it weds to be done, when members of the Labour party and other parties say that it needs to be done, why does it take so long to do it? When the Government came to power, there was a backlog of asylum seekers to be dealt with. It took a long time for the Home Office to get on top of that. The passport problem arose, and that was not dealt with until there was a crisis.
In relation to the police, there was a saga in which the Home Secretary, adopting the Tory position, first said that the number of police officers was nothing to do with the Home Secretary, it was a matter entirely for chief constables; but then suddenly realised that that was not a satisfactory answer to give the public, so he made the famous Bournemouth speech and said that the Government would allocate the extra money to put in 5,000 extra officers. There was a slight problem, however, as those officers were not extras, so that had to be revised— [interruption] Well, they were not extra in the sense of a net total of 5.000 more. There were 5,000 more officers, and then one had to deduct all those who were leaving via the back door.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): They were extra.

Mr. Hughes: If the Minister thinks that they were extra, he is the only person who still believes that what was said to be extra was extra. That is not what was discovered by everybody else on the day in question.
The Government then said that they accepted that they had to have more police. Eventually, last year, in the comprehensive spending review, having ring-fenced the so-called 5,000 extra police officers—after originally saying that that was nothing to do with the Home Secretary—and after the establishment of the crimefighting fund, there was a generous allocation. More police officers were identified in the settlement, which will produce more like 9,000 more police officers—9,000 in total or 3,000 a year. Hopefully, in the next Parliament, although not in this one by any means, there will be a rise in police numbers. The Government have, at last, agreed to get there, but why, as in so many other areas of policy, has it taken them so long to do what they said and implied they were going to do? Everyone else, including the public, wanted them to do that, and everyone else is disappointed that they did not do it earlier.
One of the problems now is that the police are expected to do so much that they are saying, "Please do not give us any more". I gather that, the week after next, we will have the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. We have had such Bills in every Session of this Parliament and pretty well every Session of the previous Parliament all producing more obligations for the police. The Bill will include fixed penalty notice systems for dealing with people on the streets and


curfews. All that I hear from the police is that they do not want any more obligations and they will not have the officers available to do additional jobs such as policing curfews, trying to work out who is—or is not—a 16-year-old, and stopping everyone under that age, whether law-abiding or not, walking around the streets. As a last minute appeal, I urge the Government to drop the nonsensical bits of their proposed legislation and allow the police to get on with the things that they want to do, deal with the troublemakers and not worry about the rest.
There is a big morale problem, which we have a duty to address. It is partly addressed by the Government's decision to improve pay and travel arrangements for the Metropolitan police, which I welcome. I am glad that the Government have also realised that police in other parts of the country need additional resources. However, it is nonsense to have a system in which those Essex, Surrey or Thames Valley police who live in an area of their county closest to London will get paid more, while police officers who live in other parts of the county, more than 50 miles from London, will not. W ill the Government be pragmatic and put on the table a proposal that there ought to be additional payment for the police in places such as Hampshire—which is not a home county—where the cost of living is more? We have to give the police the ability to buy homes, settle and stay; they should not feel that they cannot afford to live in any particular area in question.
That brings me to one final morale question. The motion condemns the early release scheme for those who have assaulted police officers. Ministers are right to point out that the scheme had the all-party support of a Select Committee. Indeed, my party gave its support, but we now believe that there is a significant problem in respect of early release for people who are guilty of assaulting public servants. We have concluded outside the House—and we seek today to reflect that conclusion here—that we now share the Conservative view on that aspect of the early release scheme. I call on Ministers to review the scheme in relation to assaults on public servants, as it does nothing to help their morale and does a significant amount to undermine it.
My unanswered questions to the Government about their policy for improving the police are not new. First, what is happening about police pensions? The Home Secretary said that they take an increasing amount of the budget, which is correct. Indeed, that explains why we do not have as much money for the police. A year ago, on 7 February, I was told in a written reply from Ministers that we would be given an indication of Government policy in spring 2000, but we have arrived at spring 2001 and silence has reigned. It would help every police authority in the land to know the answer on pensions and to be assured that they will not continue to be such a big burden and to account for such a percentage of their costs.
My second question, which I put to the Home Secretary, concerns the resolution of the great Home Office conundrum in respect of ensuring that police forces which are efficient, reduce crime and do all the right things do not end up being penalised in their budgets. Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats have proposed the immediate production of a package to retain for another five years officers who are reaching retirement age, to deal with the immediate shortage. I did not hear the Minister of State on the radio the other morning, but I

gather that he was generous and said that the Government were considering the proposal. I hope that there will be a speedy response. We also proposed to bring back good officers who have just retired and are not in full-time work. People retire from the police force at 48, 49 or 50 and are young enough to go on doing a good job. They have experience and capability and are, by definition, of far more value individually than somebody can be at 18 or 19. It would be a very good thing to bring back such officers.
Fourthly, why did the generous comprehensive spending review, which gave a 6.4 per cent. Home Office budget increase, award the police an increase of only 3.8 per cent.? That is another question to which we have not yet received an answer. Why did the police get a much smaller growth figure than the Home Office in general?
Finally, will progress now be made on sorting out the statistics? A great flurry of activity occurred about a year ago, when it was said that a committee would be established to try to ensure that statistics were correlated. The Liberal Democrats were asked to nominate a member of the committee and we did so. A year passed—at least, it is getting on for a year—and nothing happened.

Mr. Charles Clarke: A year has not passed; it was July.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise for saying it was longer if the proposal was made in July. However, it was certainly made some months ago. After it was made, a flurry of urgent activity occurred and then there was silence.
Yesterday, an example arose of the need for proper statistics. It appears that the Metropolitan police changed its ethnic recruitment statistics on its own to make it appear that it was doing better. That is nonsense. We must have common statistics so that we can see what is happening throughout the country.
The proposals in the Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion are those that we believe would most helpfully deal with current problems. I shall not repeat the suggestions that I have dealt with, but I shall add the rest.

Mr. Heald: One is always pleased to see a sinner that repenteth, but I seek some clarification. The Conservatives twice tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Bill that would have ensured that people who assault the police—just the category of people to which the hon. Gentleman referred—are not released early. Will he acknowledge that he voted against those amendments? He has completely changed his mind.

Mr. Hughes: I concede that point; we have changed our minds, having taken the view that morale among police officers and public servants is now so poor that it means that the scheme needs amendment. I concede openly that we have changed our position. We have done so because we hear from people in public service that they regard the scheme as unhelpful in giving them the respect that they need as public servants. That is why I join the Conservative party in asking Ministers to change their policy on the matter. I hope that they will do so.
I want to make a few final proposals in addition to those that I hope I have already made absolutely and expressly clear. First, there should be a regular place where these debates can take place other than between


politicians. The Police Federation asked for a royal commission. That has the weakness of being a one-off exercise. Matters move too quickly for a royal commission to be able to look into the future. I hope that the Government will respond positively to our proposal for a permanent standing conference involving all ranks and representatives of the police, politicians and the public to advise on police numbers and police efficiency. It could discuss what is needed to give us a better police force.
Such a conference could also consider whether we need so many different police forces. The regional forces should be reviewed, although I do not have a final view on that, as well as the different types of forces. Is it logical to have the British Transport police looking after railway station car parks if they are rarely present? That responsibility could be taken on by the local police, who police the area around a station car park and go past it all the time.
Secondly, there needs to be a huge, immediate increase in police officers. For five years, the Liberal Democrats have been saying that we need a minimum of 130,000 officers in England and Wales. That is still our view. That is 6,000 more than there were last April. We have asked the Government to do everything they can to bring about such an increase as quickly as possible—it is above what both the other main parties propose. If that needs more money, now is the time to spend it on public services, because, for a combination of reasons, the coffers are full of money that the Chancellor has available to spend.
Thirdly, will the Government consider attracting more police recruits by sponsoring them through college and university? Fourthly, can there be a category of retained officers, such as the fire service has, who do paid, part-time work? Fifthly, will the Government set up, in conjunction with local government, community safety forces to police estates, the streets and parks—the low-level crime policing? That would hugely reassure people.
Lastly, is it possible to ensure that every community, rural and urban, has named police assigned to it, so that all people know who their police officers are and how to get hold of them, and that they will respond speedily on the non-999 number?
The police deserve our support. The public ask us to support the police. The Government have had some success, but they have not delivered until far too late. I hope that they have got the message at last. I am, however, sad that they have failed so lamentably for so long to deliver so much of what they promised before they became the Government at the last election.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been going for two hours, and there have been three speeches by Members on the Front Benches. Back Benchers have been squeezed out of the debate. Can you give any ruling on this matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that there is no ruling that I can give on this matter. The Chair cannot control the shape of a Opposition day—whether there is one subject or two—and has no control over speeches by Members on the Front Benches. The hon. Member

highlights one of the disadvantages for Back Benchers of split Opposition days when Front Benchers take a great many interventions and make long speeches.

Ms Hazel Blears: I shall try to be brief, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) is anxious to make a contribution.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the tenor of the debate. An undue emphasis has been placed on figures, statistics and numbers of police, when we should be discussing winning the fight against crime by preventing and reducing crime, which is what people in our communities look to us to do.
The debate, however, has sharpened the choices that the British people have. They can take the Tory line as shown in the Opposition motion, which is full of cynicism, hopelessness, doom and gloom and demoralisation—as if nothing can be done. The debate in their terms is about statistics, not about people and humanity. On the other hand, they can take the Labour approach, which is about more investment, trying to tackle and reduce crime by working with local communities, and trying to give people confidence, a sense of hope and a sense that they really can make a difference. That is nod easy, as it takes time to reduce crime, but I know which approach I prefer. It is the positive one that involves practical action, taking steps, and working with communities, rather than simply running things down and making it seem as though we live in a land of hopelessness in which nothing can be done.
We have seen that Opposition Members do not like to be reminded of their record, because they think that that is boring and dull. However, it is important to place in front of the British people the fact that crime doubled under the Tories. The number of crimes involved is shocking. In 1979, 25 million crimes were committed—still far too high a figure—but that figure rose to 5.5 million under the Tories. That is an astounding statistic, and most of the people who bore the brunt of that crime lived in p corer communities. Ten per cent. of the poorest people in Britain were the victims of 42 per cent. of crime. They were people who lived in communities such as mine, where crime was allowed to reach almost epidemic proportions, destroying families and communities, and allowed to run riot.

Dr. Stoate: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Blears: No. I have very little time, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
I am heartened that the general reduction in crime figures, particularly for domestic burglary and vehicle crime, is mirrored in my constituency. Domestic burglaries are down by 20 per cent. in Seedley and Langworthy—one of the hardest inner city areas in Salford—and vehicle crime is down by nearly 20 per cent. That tells me that, for once, the poorest communities are catching up with the rest. Our crime rates are coining down at the same rate as in other areas, and poorer people are no longer being singled out as repeat victims of the crime epidemic that we experienced in this country.
Of course there is a problem with violent crime. All hon. Members feel strongly about that, which is why the measures in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill to tackle alcohol-related crime will be so crucial. The challenge will be to try to prevent that kind of crime from happening in the first place. We have to make it clear that certain kinds of behaviour are unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and that there will be swift and serious punishment for people who indulge in anti-social behaviour and disorder in our communities. At the same time, we must try to determine why they engage in such behaviour, and how we can divert them from so doing and give them more constructive things to do.
Last year, there were 50,000 incidents in which young men and women were horribly disfigured by being cut on the face by broken glasses and bottles, usually in alcohol-related crimes. A fantastic campaign has been mounted involving the Manchester Evening News; the Greater Manchester police have been involved in confiscating alcohol on the streets; and a successful byelaw has been passed. As a result, the figures for injuries in such crimes have slumped dramatically. The Home Secretary has given his personal commitment to the scheme, and hopes to roll it out nation wide. That is the kind of practical action that we can take to ensure that crime is reduced and prevented. We must be imaginative and creative in tackling crime, but the Tory motion contains a simplistic analysis. Talking up crisis and fear among members of the public is not the way to make people feel confident that they can make a difference.
Of course we need police officers to enforce the new powers that we are going to give them, and the numbers are beginning to rise after a long period of decline. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she wanted to civilianise and make police forces more effective. For goodness' sake, we have been doing that for years and years. In Greater Manchester, overall police staff numbers have fallen by 42 in the past 12 years. However, the number of operational police officers has risen by 1,075 because we have adopted civilianisation and found efficiency savings and better ways of using resources. There are now more than 1,000 extra police on the front line helping our communities to succeed.
The crimefighting fund will give the Greater Manchester police a further 588 police officers over the next three years, and in December it had the highest recruitment figures ever. Those are grounds for cautious optimism. This is not a brave new world; we are not going to solve all the problems overnight. However, the fact that recruitment figures are going up means that young people are regarding the police as a career in which they can make a contribution and become involved with their communities.
Police numbers are not the only issue. How the police are used is also important. The Tory analysis is simplistic, crude and unimaginative. I do not know why I am surprised at that; I am certainly disappointed by their approach. Greater Manchester police are to receive an extra £14 million, which includes £5 million for youth justice measures; £2 million for closed-circuit television; £2 for burglary reduction by helping elderly people to make their homes safer; £500,000 for tackling gun and gang crime; and £500,000 for tackling domestic violence.
The homelink scheme is to be introduced, which will use information technology to give people who have been the victims of crime or who are particularly vulnerable a portable alarm. In that way, they will be able to contact the police and obtain an immediate response in an effort to reduce crime. We have the schools liaison programme, aimed at diverting people aged between 10 and 18 from crime. The programme, which involves 12,000 young people in our area, is a real success story. We also have the drug arrest referral initiative.
I think all Members will acknowledge that a huge amount of crime is connected with drugs. We have established a partnership involving the police, drug action teams, health authorities and social services departments. There is a drugs referral worker in every custody suite in greater Manchester, and in the last six months those referral workers have screened 3,500 people, offering them advice and referral for treatment. One thousand people have been referred for treatment. Some 80 per cent. of those referred were offending to fund their drug use; 70 per cent. were on heroin, and 94 per cent. were unemployed. Those are sad statistics, which is why practical schemes such as this are so vital.
We are taking steps to prevent and reduce crime. We have invested an extra £3.2 million in Operation Hawk. The object is to bear down on the serious problem of street robbery, targeting those who are likely to be repeat offenders, looking for local intelligence, working with local people and using information technology to make efforts to reduce the number of robberies much more effective. We have set ourselves a tough target—to reduce the number by 20 per cent. over the next five years—but I am confident that we will achieve it, because there is real commitment.
It is hard to tackle crime, but I believe that if we are serious about it the last thing we will do is what the Tories have tried to do today. Talking of crisis and raising the spectre of violent attack lurking around every street corner demoralises our communities and demoralises the police.
The choice is clear. Do people want a Labour programme involving practical action, building self-confidence and extra investment in the police force—there will be 9,000 additional officers over the next three years—or do they want to accept the Tory option? That means talk of crisis and demoralisation, hopelessness and cynicism. It also means a cut of £24 million in every constituency in Britain. How many police officers does that involve? How many drug referral officers does it involve? How many police officers working with young people does it involve?
That is the Tory option: cuts, demoralisation and cynicism. I prefer the Labour option of hope and confidence for the future.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall follow the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in one respect. I too shall be brief, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) that there is very little time for Back-Bench speeches. That is a pity. If I may say so, as a recidivist from the Front Bench, I do not think that parliamentary debates are just debates between the two Front Benches.
If I were to engage in two reflections, they would be on what the Home Secretary said. He made much of public spending and police numbers, as the hon. Member for


Salford said. During the 11 years I was a member of Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, we were attacked by Labour Members—including, to a large degree, the present Home Secretary—for restraining public spending. I note, however, that police strengths increased dramatically during that period.
The Government continually quote figures relating to the period between 1993 and 1997, but for some reason they do not mention the figures relating to the full 18-year period of Conservative Governments. Over that period, the strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by more than 15,000, and spending increased in real terms by some 72 per cent. By any standards, that compares well with what has been achieved by the present Government, who will go to the election reporting a decline in police numbers since they came to power.
I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have observed the change in the language of Home Office Ministers in the months since I was shadow Home Secretary. We were told then that police numbers did not matter; that there had never been an age in which there was a policeman on every street corner—not that anyone had ever claimed that there had been; and, when the rest had failed, that police strength had nothing to do with Ministers, and was down to individual chief constables.

Dr. Stoate: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
As I was saying, we were told that police strength was entirely down to individual chief constables, even when—as in the case of the Metropolitan police—the Home Secretary was the police authority. We have seen—to put it at its mildest—a dramatic U-turn in Home Office policy. Ministers now accept after all that police strength is vital and does have something to do with them; for why otherwise would they be promising the money and resources that they have promised? There can be no other conclusion. However, the basic point that I should like to make is more fundamental than a comparison of records.
This week, an opinion survey in Birmingham was published, conducted by MORI for the current, Labour-controlled council. It showed that only 24 per cent. of the population thought of Birmingham as a safe city. Those who were surveyed liked Birmingham and were proud of it, but they were concerned about their personal safety. I suspect that if a similar survey were conducted in the other major cities of this country—such as Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle—there would be similar results. The public are genuinely concerned. Consequently, it was quite right of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to raise the issue as a matter of public and political debate.
Of the whole range of problems of crime, I intend to concentrate, but only briefly, on the major problems facing our cities. I am intrigued to see that the new Mayor of London is in New York, studying how its police deal with crime. He is not the first to have paid that visit—the Home Secretary has gone, as have I and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary—but he is right to go. The policies that have been so successfully applied in

New York have real relevance in London, especially given that the populations with which we are dealing are very similar.
There is one cautionary note to sound, however, as the description "zero tolerance policy" gives the impression of a police force that is prepared to intervene on the slightest pretext. It gives the impression of an over-officious force. That is why William Bratton, the former police head in New York and author of the scheme, is wary of the tag. What the police force in New York really do is apply modern management methods to the detection of crime
The New York force is proactive, keeps up pressure on criminals, gathers intelligence on crime patterns, targets suspected criminals, deploys extra officers to areas of particular difficulty, and perhaps above all, it holds to account the different police commanders across the whole city. It also has early-morning meetings, tracks crime in each precinct and holds to account each precinct commander.
So the real difference in the New York approach to policing is that the police there regard crime as something that can be directly fought and defeated. It is a rejection of the passive policy whereby officers simply wait to respond to telephone calls from the public. Just as surely, the approach is a rejection of the defensive theory that nothing can be done until we understand the real causes of crime—an approach that would condemn tens of thousands of people to living in misery until sensible policies were introduced.
There is no question but that the New York approach to policing has been spectacularly successful. Anyone who visited New York seven or eight years ago would see the difference on returning. Crime has been reduced by about 50 per cent. and the annual murder rate is down to a quarter of what it once was. However, the most important measure is not the official statistics, but the response of the ordinary citizen. That response is the crucial measure, just as the response of the ordinary citizen in Birmingham is the crucial measure.
When I was in New York, an opinion poll in The New York Times showed that 60 per cent. of the public believed that life in the city had improved because of police action. So why have we not been able to emulate the success of New York and of other United States cities? The reason is clear. When Mr. Bratton introduced his new method, one important step was taken: New York recruited 7,000 new police officers. The result is that, today, the force has a strength of almost 40,000. A similar story can be found across the United States.
Compare that with London's Metropolitan police force—which serves about the same population size as New York—and one finds a force that has to make do with a strength of fewer than 25,000. Frankly, however, there is no way in which the New York policies can be applied here. Even in what we would regard as a generously provided for police force such as New York's, policemen still note and sometimes complain of the pressure that they are under. However, that pressure is as nothing compared with the pressure that policemen are under in this country s big city forces.
Finally, I do not say that police strength is the only factor in crime, but it is one of the most important. There is a real danger that this country is under-policed, and that there are not enough police to fulfil the duties that we


give them—to which we continue to add. An example of that is the non-enforcement of the traffic laws. That may seem minor, but it leads to countless deaths and injuries.
Over the past three or four years, the Government have relied on the excellence of policemen and policewomen and allowed them to take the strain. In that way, they have hoped that the gaps in the service could be disguised. However, there comes a time when that becomes impossible.
My criticism is that the Government have taken almost four years to realise what their priorities should be. It is all very well to promise that things will be better in the future, but we have heard that once or twice before. The truth is that, since they came to office, the Government have presided over a decline in police strength, at a time when cities overseas have increased it. That was a crass error and there is no reason for the British public to forgive them for it.

Gillian Merron: The debate is not only about talking down the Government, but about talking down the effectiveness of the police. I want there to be more police officers, and I know that Ministers and all hon. Members do. The difference between the parties is that the Government are doing something about police numbers, whereas the Conservative party's plans to cut public spending have committed it to reducing police numbers.
Crime in this country is falling. That change has happened not by accident but as a result of deliberate policy. The Government have brought together the police, new legislation, smarter techniques, local partnerships and resources. That combination has been encouraged and developed by the Government, and it has taken effect in a changing culture where there is a greater regard and respect for building up both the sense and the reality of community; and the Government's approach is producing results.
This week's British crime survey showed that recorded crime in my county, Lincolnshire, his fallen by one fifth since the general election. It is not surprising that the chief constable of the Lincolnshire force, Mr. Richard Childs, should acknowledge that Lincolnshire is one of the safest places in the country to live.
I want to give the House some facts about police numbers. In Lincolnshire, we are looking forward to reaching, by April, an officer-strength target of 1,240 officers. Lincolnshire police have said that that will be the highest number of police officers ever achieved in the county.
All hon. Members know that the question is not one of police numbers alone, but of how they are deployed. In Lincolnshire, the police have launched a number of tremendous initiatives. They include mobile rural task forces, the Staying Alive road safety campaign, a reorganisation to release more police officers to the front line, and a positive and creative recruitment campaign. All those initiatives are making a big difference to policing and crime fighting, in Lincoln and across the county.
An interesting article appeared in last Friday's Lincolnshire Echo, entitled "Will More Bobbies Prevent Crime?" It concluded, first, that we should all keep a sense of proportion—a thought that I offer especially to

Opposition Members. Secondly, it concluded that new technology—such as closed-circuit television and improved security—were great contributors to the reduction in crime.
The article's third main conclusion was that a police officer on every corner would not stop most crimes. I believe that the partnership approach that includes police officers is what brings results.
I shall list, briefly, a few examples of the support that the Government have provided in my constituency—in addition to extra police officers—to help in the fight against crime. That support is also aimed at reducing the fear of crime, which is what people really want. We have just seen a recent additional development in the Monks road and Stamp End area of Lincoln, where CCTV has completed its first month in a residential area. It has helped the police to make 14 arrests, which I consider a significant contribution, through a programme developed by a partnership of the Government, Lincoln city council—which is to be congratulated on embracing its role in fighting crime—local people and the police. They are all working together to get real results in Lincoln.
Of 750 bids submitted to the Home Office for extra Government money for the CCTV programme, the Monks road and Stamp End bid was fast-tracked into the top 30. I thank Ministers for seeing the benefits for my constituency. Sandra Donnor, secretary of the Monks road initiative, has been impressed by the scheme so far. She was quoted in the local paper as saying that crime—particularly drug-related crime—in the Monks Road area was quite high, and that a lot of elderly people were frightened to go out after dark. Since CCTV has been introduced, people have said that they feel safer. Sandra Donnor said that she feels better, knowing that cameras are monitoring the area. I think that she speaks for many people in Lincoln and across the country.
The second piece of Government support for Lincoln is the anti-burglary initiative on the St. Giles estate. I was pleased to welcome the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), there not too long ago, to see the results for himself. The St. Giles anti-burglary initiative money has been spent on alarms, locks, security shutters and improved fencing, and there has been a 30 per cent. reduction in burglaries in the area.
My hon. Friend and I were invited into the home of Tracey Kelly and George Thompson, on Robert Tressell walk in the St. Giles area. We heard and saw for ourselves just how pleased they were with the security and how the area was being transformed into a community where safety was higher up the agenda.
I have a challenge for the Conservative party. What will it do, should it win the election? Its proposed £16 billion worth of cuts in public services represents cuts of some £240,000 in each constituency. The Conservatives have not committed themselves to matching our spending on the police. To meet their cuts programme in Lincoln, the Tories would be looking at cutting some 60 police officers in the city.
What else would be at risk? Projects such as the St. Giles anti-burglary initiative; Birchwood's sure start, which gives children under four the best start in life; and CCTV, welcomed by city centre businesses and by the people in Shuttleworth house in Monks road, would all be threatened. Not one person in Lincoln would be unaffected, because crime, and fear of crime, affects us all.
There is much more to do, but I hope that the House will give credit where it is due and not be misled by the Tories' constant talking down of the Government and our police officers.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I do not have time to indulge in the slap and tickle of debate that the Front Benches are engaged in on national statistics. I want to look at some of the problems in Surrey, and I have two minutes in which to do so. That does not do justice to the problems in the county of Surrey.
One of the problems of a successful police force, as was pointed out earlier, is that for a reward its grant is cut. In real terms, Surrey has, in effect, had a 2.8 per cent. cut in central Government grants. That is simply unacceptable. It means that over the next two years we will be down about 165 officers, unless drastic changes are made, and 250 officers over the next three years. That means a real change in policing, and the Surrey police force is one of the most efficient in the country. I have absolute confidence in Denis O'Connor, the chief constable. He says:
Over the last few years we have experienced an increasingly poor budget settlement. Looking forward we cannot see any hope of a significant improvement so we are forced to examine how we work to see what changes are necessary to ensure we are as efficient as possible and the most effective service is provided.
That is a further challenge added to the fact that, at present, about 60 per cent. of the recruits commute for long distances and sleep on floors during the week in order to maintain the Surrey force. We do not do badly with recruitment in Surrey, but there is a problem of bleeding to other forces—especially to the Met, because of the differential value of the housing allowance. It is difficult to maintain a force in Surrey when the cost of living in my county is as high as in most parts of London.
I have been brief. I hope that the Minister of State, Home Office is listening. I could offer him many more statistics. Please will he change the policy for counties such as Surrey and begin to be a bit more generous?

Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had a good debate, although I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) who had to restrict his remarks. I feel for hon. Members who were unable to have the full debate that they wanted.
I had intended to spend a little time on the fact that this is the first time that I have debated against the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), since he was tipped for the top. I had planned to read a little extract from the article in The Guardian, but I shall not have time to do so—what a pity.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his restraint.

Mr. Heald: I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman the bit I liked best.
We heard some excellent contributions to the debate. I shall highlight first the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who

really gave the lie to the line peddled by the Home Secretary on the history of the matter. My right hon. Friend made the point that, during our period in office, the Conservatives put up police numbers by more than 15,000. He also pointed out that that dramatic increase had been achieved against the sorry background of the previous time that Labour had been in power.
I do not want to go back to the 1970s, but many of us can remember the slice in police numbers, the damage to pay and conditions and the rise in crime. That was the Labour legacy in the 1970s. In the 1980s—

Mr. Straw: Why did police numbers rise by almost 10,000 during the period of the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary makes his point, but I wanted to make the point that—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] It is true that one can take particular dates and arrive at particular figures, but the point I wanted to make is that it took a long time to turn around the effect of those years of Labour Government—the rise in crime. The Conservatives turned that around by increasing police numbers. Every year in the 1990s, police numbers went up—

Dr. Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: I do not have time.
The numbers of police constables and special constables rose and by the time of the 1997 general election—the Home secretary should listen to this—crime was falling and the number of police constables and of police officers in general was rising. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had had the best start as Home Secretary of anyone in many years—how right he is. That start was given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

Mr. David Taylor: What a pathetic Opposition.

Mr. Heald: It is not pathetic opposition to say that we had a record to be proud of; we gave the Labour Government a good start and, by goodness, they have squandered it.
It is easy to get into statistics and talk about a fall in police numbers, but what that means on the ground is an overstretch, so when a force needs to police an incident in the town, there are no officers in the villages. If we want special initiatives to target burglars or car crime—as we do and as the Government have said we will—that is at the expense of visible policing in town centres. There is less time for police officers to talk to the public. There are fewer police stations because they cannot be manned. The police are unable to do the job that they want to do. The public do not receive the service that they deserve and that the police want to give them.
It is not merely a question of statistics. It is right of the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to say that we should have a positive attitude; no one comes out with more policies than the Conservative party. It was the Conservative party that said that we should get retired police officers back to work. We suggested part-time police officers and retained officers. It was the


Conservative party that suggested cops in shops and a new cadet service. We have ideas, but the Government must be blamed for what they have done—and what they have done is disastrous in terms of policing.

Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: No, I will not. I do not have time.
The specials have a fine history of voluntary service. Special officers have made it possible to have an additional officer in the market square on a Friday night, or to double-man a rural police car so that there can be an extra night patrol. The specials mean that when there is a police incident in one place, there is cover for the gaps. When we talk about a collapse in the morale of the police service as a whole, it is often said that it is about pay and conditions, but the fact that the number of volunteer special officers has fallen by a third under the present Government gives the lie to that. It is about morale.
When the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others say that we must increase the number of police officers, of course they are right, but it is a positive policy of the Conservative party to restore police numbers to the level that they were at when we left office. It is that sort of positive approach that we take, and take rightly.
The Home Secretary cannot get way with saying that police morale has not been fractured by his policies. The numbers are down, which means that it is much more difficult for officers to do their job. The early release scheme has meant that 200 police officers who have been assaulted have seen the people who assaulted them released early. We have won one recruit. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who opposed our policy that the early n lease scheme should not apply to people who have assaulted police officers, has decided that it is right that it should not apply in those circumstances—and he voted consistently against that proposal.
Come on, it is time for the Minister to change, too, so we want to hear from him tonight that he will protect police officers, and we would like him to apologise for what has happened—apologise to the 25 police who have been injured as a result of the actions of those who have been released.
We want a system where wastage does not run at record levels and does not increase out of control. Voluntary resignations are up 60 per cent. Just this year, the Met has revised its figures on wastage and increased them by 25 per cent. for this year. We have seen the original estimates for forces such as the Greater Manchester police, which the hon. Member for Salford mentioned. What has happened to wastage there? At the half-year point, it was running at a far higher level than was predicted earlier in the year.
We want to see recruitment levels rising, so that we can get the police that we want. There is an improvement at the moment, but we wonder whether it is a one-off caused by the change in policy by police Forces to take some recruits that they previously refused. As the Home Secretary says, it is right that people who have tattoos should be able to join the Metropolitan police; but to review the backlog of officer recruits who have been refused is a one-off exercise. Over the coming months and

years, recruitment will reach a cliff-edge. It will fall, while wastage continues to rise. The Home Secretary has seen a one-off boost, about which he can boast in the general election campaign, but the underlying position is not nearly as good as he likes to claim.
Violent crime is rising, perhaps because police officers have been focusing not on patrolling the streets but on other things, because there are not enough of them to pursue all the Government initiatives and to fight robbery, street crime and violence. There is a rise in violent crime, yet the Government are trumpeting their success. Police wastage numbers are up, yet the Government are parading their success. Public confidence is down, as the Audit Commission report shows, yet the Government are trumpeting their success.
One has to wonder what sort of success it is to achieve such results, because the Government had a golden legacy—[Laughter.] They had a golden legacy from the previous Conservative Government, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Crime was falling fast—it was down by 18 per cent.—and police numbers were rising. Now we have the exact opposite. If that is success, Labour has invented a new language, and it is no wonder that the Prime Minister will not hold a debate with the Leader of the Opposition, given the arguments available to him on this issue.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): In this brief summary, I intend to address police reform, falling crime and rising police numbers and morale, but first I shall deal with the point about Surrey, made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). As his colleague, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will confirm, we have agreed arrangements precisely to discuss some of the Surrey issues. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed pay and recruitment in his speech, but I acknowledge that issues remain to be discussed. I, too, pay tribute to the chief constable, who is raising those issues, and we have a process for discussing them.
On police reform and the famous secret mentioned by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), let me make the position clear for the record. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) rightly said, it is a matter of how the resources are used and how the process is taken forward. At the beginning of September, we held a seminar with a wide range of organisations, including the Police Federation, at Lancaster house. Mr. Fred Broughton, the president, and Mr. Jeff Moseley, the secretary, were present. We discussed how to modernise the police, especially how to provide better leadership at basic command unit level; the structure of the forces, including best value and regional co-operation; how to develop what the Metropolitan police commissioner calls "the extended police family"; and better relations between the police and other organisations.
We discussed how to develop information and communication technology and science to equip the police; how to use intelligence-led policing and CCTV; and visibility and reassurance—precisely the issues that right hon. and hon. Members have raised. We also discussed the proposal from the Police Superintendents Association that we should consider single-officer


patrolling rather than double-officer patrolling, and flexibility in the police regulations, together with the partnership development and similar issues. That important dialogue has continued since then. Another meeting will take place in a couple of weeks under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
It is true that the Police Federation decided, by a small minority vote, that it did not wish to participate in the process—its choice, not mine. I have used all possible means to urge the federation to be involved. Frankly, I think that its members will regret the fact that it is not involved in those discussions, because full engagement in the process represents the best way to involve people in modernising the force.
Lord Justice Auld is considering important reforms to the criminal justice system. That major and important agenda has been identified for all the reasons that my hon. Friends have mentioned. It is not secretive in any way; we want to engage the whole police service. Most importantly, it is led by the police and by initiatives from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, the Metropolitan police commissioner and the Police Superintendents Association. That shows that we want to have a serious debate about how to equip the country with the police service that it needs.
The second issue raised was the alleged rise in crime. In fact, crime is falling. The British crime survey, published last year, was the second to show a fall in crime—the first covered 1995–97, under the previous Government; the second covered 1997–99. Each of the previous six surveys, from 1982 to 1995, had shown increases in crime, but I am happy to pay tribute to the previous Administration for the decrease in crime in 1995–97. I wish they would do the same and give us credit for keeping down crime in 1997–99.
The recorded crime figures tell an important and significant tale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) said, there was a 4.2 per cent. reduction in crime in Lincolnshire. In the Leader of the Opposition's constituency, there was a 6 per cent. reduction in crime. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows, there was a 4.4 per cent. reduction in crime in Blackburn. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there was a 4.6 per cent. reduction in crime.

Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way because of the time at my disposal.
There was a 16.5 per cent. reduction in burglary in the force represented by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The same applies to vehicle crime and so on. Although there has been a significant reduction in crime right across the range, it needs to be better. The point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about violent crime is right. I have acknowledged in many different forums that that is a serious problem, which we are addressing, but the general picture is good and positive.
Hon. Members were right to raise the important issue of the fear of crime. The survey of English housing was published in December last year. It was an enormous

study and showed—I again pay tribute to the previous Administration—that in 1994–95. 1997–98 and 19992000, the number of people who considered crime a serious problem in their area was reduced year on year. For example, 35 per cent. of people on council estates thought that crime was a serious problem in 1994–95, but that fell to 31 per cent. in 1997–98 and to 24 per cent. in 1999– 2000. In affluent family areas, the figure fell from 16 per cent. to 12 per cent. to 6 per cent.
The story is one of improvement. It is absolutely not the case that crime is rising; it is falling. The debate would be much improved if, rather than telling untruths, hon. Members faced the facts and acknowledged the truth of what is happening in their constituencies.
Police numbers are also important. We have published statistics, and they are clear. After seven years of decline in police numbers since 1993—for reasons with which we are familiar—those hr ye been turned around. The national figure shows an increase of 444 over the six months to September last year which is reflected in particular forces. The number of police in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is up by 35 and in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition it is up by 10. Two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople are from constituencies that are covered by the Thames Valley police force, in which the number of police has increased by eight. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the number is up by 36. Numbers are increasing right across the country.
I can go further. The House may be interested to know that the number of recruits in the North Yorkshire force is four times greater this year than it was last year. It is going up and we are going forward.
I can go further still. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is always keen to draw a comparison between March 1997 and the current state of affairs. Let me give her the facts. According to the most recent figures for police force strength, which go up to 30 September last year, police numbers in 13 forces—nearly a third of all forces in the country—are higher than they were when we came into government. Those forces include Devon and Cornwall, which has been mentioned, Dorset, Durham, Dyfed-Powys, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Leicestershire, Northumbria, North Wales, South Wales, South Yorkshire and Thames Valley. I must tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that there were 7,350 officers in the West Midlands constabulary last September compared with 7,113 when we came into power. There has been a major increase across the country.
We have said many times that, by 31 March 2002, there will be more police officers than there were in 1997. Between now and the n, more and more forces will exceed the number of officer who were employed when we came into office. We have introduced more changes and delivered better policing.
The story is the same for police morale. Assaults on police have decreased. We have given our figures to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not.
The Government's policy is clear. First, we shall continue to increase the number of police officers in every force in the country. Secondly, we shall continue to



reform and modernise the police service so that we deploy and use resources most effectively. Thirdly, we shall continue to focus on particular crimes, so that we find solutions to them, solve them and drive them out, because that is what we have to do, crime by crime by crime. Fourthly, we shall continue to build partnerships with other services across the country Finally—it is the principal goal of our policy—we shall continue to drive down crime. That is the determination of the Government; we are doing it and shall continue to do it. The country will face a choice when we go to the polls. I know that it will trust this Government to deliver what the previous Government never could.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 265.

Division No. 68]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fraser, Christopher


Allan, Richard
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Garnier, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gibb, Nick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gill, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ballard, Jackie
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bercow, John
Gray, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Grieve, Dominic


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hancock, Mike


Brady, Graham
Harris, Dr Evan


Brand, Dr Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heald, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hunter, Andrew



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Bernard


Clappison, James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)



Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Collins, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cotter, Brian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cran, James
Lansley, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Leigh, Edward


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Letwin, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Loughton, Tim


Duncan Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Nigel
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Faber, David
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fearn, Ronnie
Malins, Humfrey


Right, Howard
Maples, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mates, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian





May, Mrs Theresa
Swayne, Desmond


Moss, Malcolm
Syms, Robert


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Page, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Paice, James
Townend, John


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Prior, David
Tyler, Paul


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Rendel, David
Walter, Robert



Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilshire, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. John Randall and


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Alexander, Douglas
Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Iain



Atkins, Charlotte
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Corbett, Robin


Bailey, Adrian
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony
Corston, Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Best, Harold
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Betts, Clive
(B'ham Hodge H)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Drown, Ms Julia


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caplin, Ivor
Etherington, Bill


Casale, Roger
Reid, Rt Hon Frank


Caton, Martin
Rsher, Mark


Cawsey, Ian
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Rint, Caroline


Chaytor, David
Rynn, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Follett, Barbara


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)






Foulkes, George
Mallaber, Judy


Galloway, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Gapes, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gardiner, Barry
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Martlew, Eric


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Merron, Gillian


Goggins, Paul
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Motley, Elliot


Hanson, David
Mountford, Kali


Healey, John
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mudie, George


Hepburn, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Heppell, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hinchliffe, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Eddie


Hood, Jimmy
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Plaskitt, James


Howells, Dr Kim
Pond, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pound, Stephen


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Joyce, Eric
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ryan, Ms Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Lammy, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sheerman, Barry


Laxton, Bob
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lepper, David
Singh, Marsha


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Skinner, Dennis


Linton, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McCabe, Steve



MeCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter


McDonagh, Siobhain
Southworth, Ms Helen


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McDonnell, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McFall, John
Stevenson, George


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McIsaac, Shona
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stringer, Graham





Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Touhig, Don
Woolas, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wyatt, Derek


Tynan, Bill



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Vis, Dr Rudi
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. Tony McNulty.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 129.

Division No. 69]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coleman, Iain


Ainger, Nick
Colman, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbett, Robin


Alexander, Douglas
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allan, Richard
Corston, Jean


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cotter, Brian


Atkins, Charlotte
Cox, Tom


Austin, John
Crausby, David


Bailey, Adrian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Banks, Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Barnes, Harry
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Darvill, Keith



Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Marqaret
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benton, Joe



Berry, Roger
Dean, Mrs Janet


Best, Harold
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dismore, Andrew



Blears, Ms Hazel
Dobbin, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brand, Dr Peter
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Efford, Clive


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Burgon, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Burstow, Paul
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Flint, Caroline


Casale, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Caton, Martin
Follett, Barbara


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Galloway, George


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gapes, Mike






Gardiner, Barry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gerrard, Neil
Maxton John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Miller, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin


Grogan, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morley, Elliot


Hancock, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David




Harris, Dr Evan
Mountford, Kali


Healey, John
Mudie, George


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hepburn, Stephen
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Heppell, John
O'Brien Mike (N Warks)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L


Hope, Phil
Plaskitt, James


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Pond, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice. Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Jenkins, Brian
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Raynsford, Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa



Joyce, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Roy, Frank


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ruane, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Ruddock, Joan


Kidney, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Kilfoyle, Peter

Ryan, Ms Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sarwar, Mohammad


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sawford, Phil


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sedgemore, Brian


Lammy, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Laxton. Bob
Singh, Marsha


Lepper, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Ft Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Ft Hon Chris (Islington S)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCabe, Steve
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter


McDonagh, Siobhain
Southworth, Ms Helen


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McDonnell, John
Stevenson, George


McFall, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stinchcombe, Paul


McIsaac, Shona
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mackinlay, Andrew
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McNamara, Kevin
Stringer, Graham


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stunell, Andrew


McWilliam, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mallaber, Judy



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)





Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
White, Brian


Timms, Stephen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Tipping, Paddy



Tonge, Dr Jenny
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Touhig, Don
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Truswell, Paul
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Woolas, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tynan, Bill
Wyatt, Derek


Vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Tony McNulty.


NOES


Amess, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hunter, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Blunt, Crispin
Key, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Boswell, Tim
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brazier, Julian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Norman, Archie


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Evans, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Faber, David
Page, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Paice, James


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gale, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy






Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Wilshire, David


Walter, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. John Randall and


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
'That this House notes that the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by 1,476 between 1993 and 1997–98 under budgets set by the previous administration, whilst the strength of the Metropolitan Police Service was allowed to fall by 1,773 between 1993 and 1997–98; notes too that morale of the service was badly damaged by the 1993 Sheehy Report, and recruitment made difficult especially in London and the South East by the abolition in 1994 of the housing allowance for officers; welcomes the establishment of the crime fighting fund to bring officer numbers to record levels by 2003–04, the recent rise in police numbers, the 74 per cent. increase in the numbers of recruits entering training in the first nine months of this financial year compared to the same period last year, the 1,000 increase in civilian staff since March 1997, and the very substantial rise in police funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review 2000; and congratulates the police service on securing a 7 per cent. reduction in recorded crime since March 1997.'.

SPORT

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. COM(99)643, a Commission Communication entitled 'Community Support Plan to Combat Doping in Sport', European Union Document No. COM(99)644, the Helsinki Report on Sport and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 23rd November 2000, submitted by the Department of Culture. Media and Sport relating to the Declaration on Sport; considers that the special nature and role of sport should be recognised in applying Community rules to sporting activity; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that Europe is effectively represented in the deliberations of the World Anti-Doping Agency. —[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 24 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

DRAFT DEREGULATION (SUNDAY LICENSING) ORDER 2000

Resolved,
That the draft Deregulation (Sunday Licensing) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved. —[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session. —[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Cleansing Services Group

Mr. Laurence Robertson: In the early hours of 30 October, there was an explosion and subsequent fires at the chemical reprocessing plant owned and run by Cleansing Services Group Ltd. at Sandhurst in Gloucestershire. Because the site flooded soon after, as it is prone to do, the hazardous chemicals could not be removed from the site for some time. Many people have since complained of feeling ill, and two were detained in hospital for a while afterwards.
The site has emitted obnoxious odours for years, and I and many others, including local councillors Mark Williams and Paul Ockelton, have repeatedly warned about the unsafe running of that plant. We were largely ignored, yet, sadly, we were right. The chemical works are built on a flood plain. The company has shown a disregard for its neighbours and the environment, and the agencies have been unable to control it effectively.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to make a speech when presenting a petition. He has solely the right to present the petition.

Mr. Robertson: The petition was compiled by the chairman of Sandhurst parish council, Mr. Andrew Warren, and contains about 2,100 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request
that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to close the site in order to eliminate any hazardous operation with the potential to cause damage to the surrounding environment and population.
To lie upon the Table.

Young Offenders (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on a subject in which I have expressed considerable interest over the years. Indeed, essentially, I am coming back to a subject which I raised in an Adjournment debate in May 1999. I have followed it up through interest in and contact with people who work at Feltham prison, as well as prison visitors and others.
However, I want to put the matter in a wider context. I am sometimes criticised by my dimmer critics in Twickenham for taking an interest in an institution in an adjacent constituency which is not part of Twickenham. However, all of us—and certainly those of us who are concerned with London—have an interest in the workings of the young offenders institution. A though we have just had a debate on police numbers, there is a fear of crime. Crime is not simply a matter of police numbers and detection by the police, but involves the way in which the relatively small numbers of persistent young offenders are dealt with. It concerns whether they are caught, how they are punished and whether they are subsequently rehabilitated or reoffend. That relates very much to the way in which the young offending regime operates.
I am aware that, since I introduced my last Adjournment debate, there have been big changes, some of which have made headlines, including the riots at Feltham and the tragic death of Zahid Mubarak. However, there have been positive development in the youth justice system, such as the creation of teams to deal with young offenders, the appointment of the Youth Justice Board and a whole new approach to under-18 offending. I want to try to incorporate some of that in my speech.
My main message for the Minister, to which I hope he will respond, is that the message that I get back from the prison is that there is a tale of two parts. In certain respects, there have been big steps forward and big improvements, but, in others, there has been stagnation or regression, which relates largely to age categories. Everybody concerned acknowledges hat there has been a big step forward concerning the care of under-18s or former juveniles. A separate wing has been created, more recreation has been provided, and here is a gym and proper education provided. When I last spoke on the matter, few of the 16-year-olds were getting any education, which is now being remedied. There is a much more positive approach to the rehabilitation of that age group.
I am sure that the Minister would accept, however, that for people in that age group, everything is far from perfect. Even now, there are far too many of them in Feltham prison. I believe that the prison's capacity for the under-18s is about 180, but there are far more than 200 there. As a result, a separate unit for them has had to be created among that for the older prisoners, where they have none of the better treatment that they get in the other unit.
As I am sure the Minister knows, there are also problems, such as the disciplinary regime. Despite the fact that many under-18s are enjoying better recreational

facilities, there is a marked recourse to smashing up cells. There is obviously still a lot of anger and violence in that age cohort. None the less, the feedback that we are all getting shows that there have been a big step forward and great improvements.
The older young offenders—the 18 to 21-yearolds—constitute the other side of the coin. They are affected partly by the improvements that apply to the lower age range. The younger offenders get gym, and there is therefore less gym space and time available for the older offenders. Many continue to be locked up for 22, and sometimes 23 hours a day, partly because of staffing problems, to which I shall revert in a moment. Conditions are difficult, and there are little problems, which I hope that the Minister can perhaps solve through intervention.
In an overcrowded, pressurised environment, an hour out of a cell provides little recreation. The young people naturally want to ring home, and there are simply not enough telephones to do that. Those are simple problems, but the environment is difficult for 18 to 21-year-olds. That is the big story that has emerged in the past couple of years.
Among the other issues that I raised 18 months ago, one of the main problems that Sir David Ramsbotham, the chief inspector, highlighted was hygiene and cleanliness. I believe that substantial improvements have been made, and that much has been done to alleviate simple problems such as changing clothes, and ensuring that people have regular changes of mattress if needed. However, many of the problems to which I referred continue to exist. That is worrying. I shall itemise some of them.
First, extreme violence and tension often exist in the prison environment. I was struck by a passage in the visitors' annual report. It reads flatly until one assimilates what it is trying to convey. It states:
Over the year Feltham has had a high level of assaults and self-harm. During July 2000, an average month, statistics show that there were 49 serious assaults and 10 serious attempted hangings.
That reflects a typical month. The problems have existed in the prison for many years, and they culminated in the murder of Zahid Mubarak last year. Clearly, they are part of the culture that has not yet been eradicated.
Secondly, all prison reports have referred to the problem of severe overcrowding, and the sharing of cells that were designed for only one prisoner. I have had trouble with the arithmetic; perhaps the Minister will be able to bring us up to date. I understand that there are currently just over 600 prisoners because one of the wings is out of action. However, I believe that the plan is to increase the numbers again to approximately 875. That would be 100 prisoners in excess of the official capacity. In human terms, that means that approximately 60 cells, which were designed for one inmate, will be shared, in some cases as dormitories. Over the past couple of years, efforts have been made to introduce basic privacy in those shared units, but considerable tension exists in them, and the position is unsatisfactory.
Some of the e-mail correspondence that I have received from prison staff suggests that the third problem has become worse. It relates to staffing. It is not simply a matter of numbers or money. There is a high rate of


long-term absenteeism for sickness. The figures that the Minister recently provided in a parliamentary answer suggest that the rate of absence is about 18 per cent.; prison staff tell me that it is somewhat higher. Staff are under extreme pressure and many respond by going on long-term sick leave. The remainder are therefore asked to pick up the slack and are under even more pressure. That leads to higher sickness rates. There is a vicious spiral of extreme tension, demoralisation and low staff morale. Such a serious issue cannot be accommodated by hiring more people and providing more money. It clearly relates to the management of the institution.
Another problem has arisen in the past year. I was startled when I was told that there have been five governors in the past year. Two were temporary because of the gap between permanent appointments. However, with such a rapid turnover of senior management staff, it is difficult to get the continuity and commitment necessary to make such an institution work.
There are two recurring themes. One is the treatment of the health needs of prisoners. I know that an attempt has been made to strengthen the health unit in the hospital, but it is most alarming that it takes the best part of three months to place the large number of prisoners who are psychologically disturbed in a national health service psychiatric institution, because of the shortages of staff and the difficulties of vetting. In that three-month period, many of them are vulnerable to self-harm.
The other factor, which I do not want to make too much of, is that in the past there has been a serious imbalance between the proportion of ethnic minorities in the prison population, which is roughly 50 per cent., and the proportion in the staff, which is about 10 per cent. All the staff I have ever met have had a positive approach and have treated prisoners in a non-racialist way. I do not think that people associated with the prison have ever alleged that that is a major issue. However, such an imbalance between the composition of the staff and the inmates is a problem, but perhaps the question of why there is such an imbalance in the prison population should be posed to magistrates. Progress in building up the role of ethnic minorities in the staff seems to be slow, and that clearly requires further attention in the long term.
Can progress in dealing with the under-18s be carried forward to the older young offenders? There is now a jarring contrast between the two, and it is not merely academic, because 17-year-olds become 18 and they progress from a much-improved regime to one that is much worse. The disparity between the two regimes must be dealt with, and I would be interested to hear how the Minister proposes to do that.
The staffing problem merges into the general problem of professional staff and labour shortages in west London, which manifests itself in various ways and applies to police officers, nurses and teachers. However, there is a specific problem of high rates of long-term sickness and absenteeism, possibly connected with management leadership. How is that problem to be addressed?
Will the Minister take a personal interest in dealing with the difficulties that some visitors have pointed out to me? Simple, practical measures could often, with a little

money and resources, make a considerable difference to the quality of the environment in which these prisoners live—for example, having access to more telephones and having electricity in the cells so that they can have televisions. I am not arguing for a Butlin's holiday camp environment, but it is generally accepted that such facilities are important to prevent self-harm and suicide, especially in the early stages of incarceration.
My final point is more fundamental. How do the Government see the role of institutions such as Feltham in the long term? what is envisaged in 10 to 20 years' time? It is the largest institution of its kind in Europe. Our experience of these young offenders institutions is that they are not succeeding in their fundamental objective of rehabilitating prisoners. There is an enormously high rate of reoffending, which is partly due to the nature of the institution. What is even more important is that 70 per cent. of the prisoners are non-violent offenders. Is there not a better way of dealing with this problem than incarceration in an institution such as Feltham, with its problems of overcrowding, and with its pressures and violence?
I know that the Government have carried out pilot schemes on alternatives. One thing that slightly worries me, which the Minister can perhaps comment on, is that magistrates are using their increased flexibility of powers by giving custodial-plus-training sentences in preference to community service. Because the training element is attractive to magistrates, they are referring more young people for custodial sentences, whereas that may not always be the most; propriate approach.
I should be grateful for the Minister's response on the long-term picture. Will there be a major role for prisons of that kind? Clearly there are very violent people who have to be locked up to protect society, but is not there a way to achieve an environment in which the numbers held are much smaller and the pressures exerted much less severe?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing time for the debate, whose title is so broadly cast that, at first sight, I did not think that he would concentrate so much on Feltham. However, I welcome any attention being paid to that institution. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) for the concern that he shows for the matter and I also welcome interest when it comes from neighbouring Twickenham.
I would take issue with those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who uncharitably mock his interest in Feltham. The more London Members who are concerned about what happens there, the better it will be. As London Members, we all have constituents who sadly end up in that place and we all have constituents who have an interest in Feltham making its contribution to cutting crime. That, and reducing recidivism while holding prisoners in safe and decent secure conditions, have to lie at the heart of Feltham as an institution. That is what it is all about, and I acknowledge our debt of gratitude to all those who work at, with and in Feltham to that end.
I of course include staff in that, but I include, too, the board of visitors, which I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the more than 20 voluntary sector organisations that spend time in Feltham contributing to the regime and to building the links between the institution and the wider community, which are so important to ensuring effective resettlement and reintegration in the community.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about progress at Feltham. Real progress has been made since he last addressed the matter in the House, but there is no room for complacency and we still have a way to go. There is a distinction, to which he drew attention, between Feltham A and Feltham B in terms of the quality of the regimes for under-18s and over-18s. Undoubtedly, progress has been made on the regime for under-18s—he drew attention to several aspects of that—as a result of a not inconsiderable investment in new youth justice resources, which has characterised the Government's approach to ensuring that young people are effectively diverted from crime and have their criminal activities properly addressed by the police, the courts, the probation service and prisons. It is vital that all those agencies, as parts of the criminal justice system, work together. They work best when they enable the voluntary sector and the community to make an input to reducing reoffending and creating effective reintegration to the community.
So that no one is in any doubt, let me make the point that our view is that the courts should be able to remand or, on conviction, sentence young people to young offender institutions when they believe that the offences committed by and the circumstances of a young person merit that. It is our responsibility to ensure—as we will—that enough places are available for young people to be held in safe, secure and decent conditions. My response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the future of institutions such as Feltham is that there will be a continuing role for institutions that can hold young people in such conditions, whether they are on remand or have been sentenced.
I must add, however, that it is important to provide the courts with a range of options. That has been a hallmark of the Government's approach to youth offending, and it is why we have placed such emphasis on the role of the youth offender team. The team is important in the context of disposal, which involves probation services, social services, the police, the voluntary sector and health authorities working together to ensure that young people's needs are met, and that the incidence of offending is reduced.
We also introduced those youth offender panels to divert first-time offenders who admit guilt from the criminal justice system. Ours is a dual approach, which recognises the importance of ensuring that there is adequate provision for secure holding while also investing in the availability of sentencing options that can be delivered in the community, and which involves an ever-closer working relationship between those responsible for secure accommodation, or custody, and the probation service. We want to ensure that, whatever the courts decide, matters involving education and health are addressed.
The health issue is important. I visited Feltham on new year's eve; indeed, I visited a number of prisons on new

year's eve. My visit gave me an opportunity to view the health-care centre again. It has improved enormously, in terms of its fabric and also in terms of staff numbers, but a number of deeply troubled and distressed young people are held there.
We should of course ensure that there is effective transmission to the national health service and the wider mental health care system, and that such transmission is expedited. That is being achieved through ever-closer working relationships between the NHS and the prison health-care service. However, we should also do all that we can to reduce the number of incidents of self-harm at Feltham. Mandatory suicide awareness training for all staff was completed at the end of December, and a "buddy" scheme will shortly be introduced. Listener training has also been completed.
The question of facilities in general is important. The Prison Service has been working actively with the Youth Justice Board to alleviate pressures at Feltham, and to bring the population of under-18s within the establishment's capacity of 240. The number has been within that total since November, and we intend to do all we can to ensure that it is not exceeded. We have achieved the reduction by redesignating remand to "sentenced" accommodation at Ashfield and Onley, and creating an additional 90 "sentenced" places at Hollesley Bay.
It is true that we now need to concentrate more on provision for the over-18s, and to seek resources accordingly. That is not going to be easy, but we shall certainly be focusing on it. Hon. Members should not forget, however, that our achievements in relation to under-18s were made possible by a considerable injection of resources. Nevertheless, the director general is seeking to find new resources for over-18s at Feltham, and I support him 100 per cent. in that.
We are working at Feltham to build on the staff's determination to address various issues, which undoubtedly include racism, institutional racism, the importance of the RESPOND—racial equality for staff and prisoners—programme and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the importance of ensuring greater diversity among staff. As he will be aware, the Commission for Racial Equality also is taking an interest in Feltham.
There are also issues of recruitment and sickness at Feltham. Throughout the Prison Service, however, management is placing a new focus and emphasis on addressing the sickness issue. Sickness levels are unacceptably high and we have to ensure that they are reduced. It is a challenge for management and for unions.
There are real recruitment and retention issues in the south-east, largely because of the cost of accommodation. That point was made to me very forcefully by Feltham staff when I last met them to discuss the issue. Therefore—with colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the office of the London Mayor and others—we are working on who will be designated as key workers. We should ensure that prison officers are among the key workers for whom extra assistance is being investigated to alleviate accommodation problems in the south-east, particularly in London.
So there have been some real improvements, but challenges remain. Everyone, however, is determined to tackle those challenges. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's very well made point on management continuity at


Feltham, especially in relation to its governor. There are various reasons for management changes at Feltham, sadly including sickness. However, we are working to ensure continuity, high-quality management and leadership at the establishment.
I pay tribute again to all who are concerned to improve Feltham. I am also absolutely determined to ensure that the Prison Service and the Home Office do all in our

power to ensure that Feltham makes a real contribution to crime reduction—by holding those young people, whether under 18 or over 18, in safe, secure and decent conditions. The more debates there are on such institutions and the greater hon. Members' interest in them, the better it will be. I am grateful for the opportunity to have contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.